Skepticism

EVENTS

Muslim creationists are as obtuse as the Christian kind

Over the last few days, I’ve had a ‘conversation’ with a Muslim creationist on Twitter. He’s claiming that the embryology in the Quran is accurate and specific, and amusingly, he’s citing this article on the web to support his claim, saying that it is on his side. He starts off with some criticisms — he doesn’t like the tone, it’s not sciencey enough — but he says that it confirms that the “Quran is more specific and very different in the level of detail then Greek”.

There’s an amusing bit where it suddenly sinks into his thick skull that I’m the author of the article.

That’s not going to stop him, though. Watch. He still insists that I wrote the opposite of what I actually wrote.

Comments

I ran into a Christian would-be apologist of this caliber not long ago. Same situation: he’d quote me and then challenge me to defend the exact opposite of what I had said. No amount of back and forth could get him to see what he was doing.

I want to see these people go about their daily lives. Like buying coffee:

Barista: That’ll be $4.50.
Apologist: You’re wrong. The price is not $50.00. How could your business survive charging that much for coffee. The price should be $4.50.
Barista: That’s what I said; the price is $4.50.
Apologist: So you admit that you were wrong! But why will you not provide a defense for the original price of $50.00?

It’s like steelhead fishing. Throw the line out, get comfortable, and sit back patiently until there’s a tug on the line. Set the hook, let the fish run with just a little drag until it tires, then reel it in.

And then when you find you’ve hauled in a goddamned worthless sucker, throw it back.

Reminds me of the folks who want an exact quote on their particular delusion by a great authority. “The moon is not made up of ossified unicorn farts carried by gravid teleomeres with pixie-dusted left-chiral codpieces.” — Albertus Magus, DDS, PhD, OMG, BBC, Wii.

I’ve got a woman on OKCupid who is asking similar questions, but it’s about the Big Bang and how it’s “only” a theory. She doesn’t seem to be able to grasp the concept of what a theory is in scientific terms no matter how many times I explain it to her. I even sent her a link to Dr. Tim White’s video on YouTube where he explains what a scientific theory is. She wrote back asking if I wanted to continue the discussion. I’m sitting on the fence with this one.

@vernonbalbert(#8):
Make it contingent on her being able to explain in her own words what the word theory means when used in science.
If you want some fun at her expense then use her version of theory to dismiss everything she says since her existing is only a theory.

I saw a similar discussion on Twitter a few days ago where a Muslim argued that because the Zamzam well has not run dry, this was confirmation of Islam and deserving of “miracle” status. This may be the king of non-sequiturs.

I have to give credit where credit is due: the Quran’s take on this is still better than anything about it in the Bible, though that’s sure not saying much.

Well the Quran was written many centuries later than the Bible, so that makes perfect sense. A book stuck in an early medieval world-view will be more accurate, on average, than one stuck in an early bronze age world-view….

OK, so this clown can tweet. Invite him over here; I’d love to see him engage with the Horde™.

It might be fun to play with a chewtoy, but it’s less satisfying – at least your dog thinks you’re wonderful for playing on the other end of the fascinating thing.

I moderate at a science forum. We occasionally have Muslims turning up with wallso’text from the Quran randomly classified as physics or astronomy or biology. But for creationists, I’d have to say that Hindus take some beating for relentless repeat/recycle of refuted stuff. I have to say their creation myths are a bit more varied and fun. They’re much more like indigenous Australian Dreamtime stories than the Abrahamic one god did everything routine. I actually learned some geography from dealing with one of these.

Creationists from different religions may be apologists for different flavours of imaginary sky fairy, but they all share a fundamental inability to grasp the evidence, or more accurately a preparedness to disregard any evidence that fails to gel with their beliefs.

None of them ever let reality disturb their cherished delusions. When that is behaviour demonstrated by some theistic windbag on Twitter it may be mildly amusing or frustrating depending upon one’s mood, but if people like that ever get the slightest hint of power then it stops being funny very quickly indeed. Especially when they start shaping educational policy.

Wow! I read the translation of the two passages in your original post, and , wow again, it’s exactly like that bit early on in The Fifth Element where they reconstruct what’s’ername!!
Do you think that Mo had seen that movie?

I read the Koran a few years ago, and what struck me was how Mohamed kept repeating that it is not a book of poetry or of vague meanings, but a book of signs, intended to make things clear. How apologists went from that to milking every line for hidden meanings that would only become decipherable after 14 centuries is beyond me…

Hilarious and painful. You’re a hero for slogging through these exchanges. Laying it out online like that on Twitter and in this useful blog post summary will surely help many people in the future on both sides of the “debate”.

Moggie,
it’s lunch-time so I finally have time to express my horror that you are almost as bad as I am!! You didn’t give the Supreme Being Her (PBUH) proper full name: Leeloominaï Lekatariba Lamina-Tchaï Ekbat De Sebat. Please do so in the future.

The source for all this is a Canadian Emeritus Professor of embryology, Keith Moore and his text book The Developing Human where he makes his claims. There are a lot of videos around of him presenting his Embryology in the Qur’an arguments. You can find some information about him here http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Dr._Keith_Moore_and_the_Islamic_Additions

In some of these videos he is asked if he is a Muslim and he replies that he is a deeply believing Christian and the son of a Presbyterian minister. So I wondered if there was also a Christian creationist connection. Sure enough when I searched for Keith Moore on Answers in Genesis his name popped up. His books are commonly referred to in their articles.

This miscegenous relationship should come as no surprise of course considering that other Muslim creationist crackpot Harun Yahya and his Christian connections.

When the Intellectual Honesty of Evolutionary Atheists breaks down on the Face of Quranic Facts
Here is the atheist evolutionary biologist PZ Myers playing the ostrich game (hide in the sand) in a debate on twitter and completely fails to support his proposition with scientific facts to refute Quranic explanation of human embryology.

They explain seven stages that a human embryo develop from sperm to a living baby plus that those seven stages are in the right chronology.
No, they don’t. They don’t explain anything. You apparently believe that they’re referring to proper embryology, but the verses themselves simply don’t contain that information.

To give a specific example, note how the text contains no mention of time at all. There’s not even the most superficial description of how long each stage is supposed to take. How long does the “lump of flesh” stage last? A day? A week? A month? The text doesn’t say.

Another example is near the end: “… and later We made him into other forms…”
If that doesn’t qualify as vague what the hell does? Serious question: Explain what would qualify as “vague”.

They explain seven stages that a human embryo develop from sperm to a living baby plus that those seven stages are in the right chronology.

No, they don’t. They don’t explain anything. You apparently believe that they’re referring to proper embryology, but the verses themselves simply don’t contain that information.

To give a specific example, note how the text contains no mention of time at all. There’s not even the most superficial description of how long each stage is supposed to take. How long does the “lump of flesh” stage last? A day? A week? A month? The text doesn’t say.

Another example is near the end: “… and later We made him into other forms…”
If that doesn’t qualify as vague what the hell does? Serious question: Explain what would qualify as “vague”.

In this article Pz is trying to compare Quranic explanation of human embryology and ancient Greek pseudo-scientists like Aristotle and Galen.

He says “… expressed in the most general terms, so nebulous that there is very little opportunity for disproof…… Aristotle and Galen got a lot wrong because they tried to be specific and wrote whole books on the subject; you can read the entirety of Aristotle’s On the Generation of Animals. Galen was prolific and left us about 20,000 pages on physiology and medicine. ………and by comparing it to the work of Aristotle and Galen, who got lots of things wrong. How, he wonders many times, could Mohammed have written down only the correct parts of the Greek and Roman embryological tradition, and avoided their errors, if he weren’t divinely inspired? My answer is easy: Mohammed avoided the trap of being caught in an overt error here …..So, yes, you can find lots of examples in their work where they got the biology completely wrong, and it’s harder to do that in the Quran”

Here Pz says: “Mohammed avoided the trap of being caught in an overt error here”
The BIG question here is how could Mohamed have Known that being very specific about this issue could be a trap?

Don’t worry Pz, i have the exact answer: because Mohamed in the 7th century had a clue about the coming modern 20/21st century technology so he decided to *ovoid* the *overt trap* that ancient Greek pseudo-scientists Fallen in, in order to avoid *being caught in*.

In this article Pz is trying to compare Quranic explanation of human embryology and ancient Greek pseudo-scientists like Aristotle and Galen.

He says:

Here Pz says:

The BIG question here is how could Mohamed have Known that being very specific about this issue could be a trap?

Don’t worry Pz, i have the exact answer: because Mohamed in the 7th century had a clue about the coming modern 20/21st century technology so he decided to *ovoid* the *overt trap* that ancient Greek pseudo-scientists Fallen in, in order to avoid *being caught in*.

I wouldn’t so much say that Mohamed was being deliberately vague, but rather that he was really fucking ignorant and all he knew about “embryology” was the vaguest, most information devoid trivialities that his regional culture could very easily provide by direct observation. A 9 year old growing up in a farm could tell you pretty much the same, although i suspect he/she might do significantly better because you know, educational systems…

In this article Pz is trying to compare Quranic explanation of human embryology and ancient Greek pseudo-scientists like Aristotle and Galen.

He says:
“… expressed in the most general terms, so nebulous that there is very little opportunity for disproof…… Aristotle and Galen got a lot wrong because they tried to be specific and wrote whole books on the subject; you can read the entirety of Aristotle’s On the Generation of Animals. Galen was prolific and left us about 20,000 pages on physiology and medicine. ………and by comparing it to the work of Aristotle and Galen, who got lots of things wrong. How, he wonders many times, could Mohammed have written down only the correct parts of the Greek and Roman embryological tradition, and avoided their errors, if he weren’t divinely inspired? My answer is easy: Mohammed avoided the trap of being caught in an overt error here …..So, yes, you can find lots of examples in their work where they got the biology completely wrong, and it’s harder to do that in the Quran”

Don’t worry Pz, i have the exact answer: because Mohamed in the 7th century had a clue about the coming modern 20/21st century technology – kalid@46

Here you are making an assertion without any evidence whatsoever – because you don’t have any. The most charitable interpretation one can honestly make is that Mohamed was vague because he knew he was ignorant of the details – but of course, honesty is too much to expect of a purblind religious apologist.

It’s only a trap if you don’t really know what you’re talking about. If you do know, then you can be as specific as you want and you still won’t be proven wrong.

Fact is that the text of the Qur’an could easily have been written by a person without any particular understanding of embryology. The tiny bit of knowledge necessary to avoid blatant errors could easily be obtained by observing livestock, for example.

The text, as it stands, simply doesn’t show an unusual level of knowledge. It could have been written by just about any random Arabic herdsman or merchant. It would only have taken a passing familiarity with animals and a bit of extrapolation from that. Nothing supernatural required.

“Debating in a civilized way” is in large part a matter of being able either to support your assertions, or to admit honestly that you can’t. Now you have asserted that Mohamed was vague because he “had a clue about the coming modern 20/21st century technology”. What is your evidence for that assertion?

I think that would be premature and useless. Our disagreements really go much further back than that. I suggest we start by discussing the standards by which we evaluate a text; any text. Once we’re agreed on that, we can apply these standards to the specific text in question.

For example, let’s consider the question: How do we judge whether a text reflects an accurate understanding of a subject by the writer?

Personally, I’d want the writer to explicitly and precisely lay out his knowledge. If the text is vague, open to much interpretation or generally low in information content, I can’t then justify a belief that the writer had a good, detailed understanding of the subject. I can only accept a certain level of knowledge demonstrated if the text actually contains that knowledge.

More specifically, if a text could be read as fitting a certain body of knowledge, that is not in itself evidence that the writer knew about this body of knowledge. Simple lack of contradiction is not sufficient. The text must actually contain the knowledge, or at least sufficient details that we can rule out any other possible interpretation.

Here’s the English translation of the entire embryological content of the Quran:

We created man from an essence of clay, then We placed him as a drop of fluid in a safe place. Then We made that drop of fluid into a clinging form, and then We made that form into a lump of flesh, and We made that lump into bones, and We clothed those bones with flesh, and later We made him into other forms. Glory be to God the best of creators.

What, specifically, are you claiming Mohamed said that he couldn’t have guessed, and that Galen didn’t mention?

Kalid: your storify buttresses mine. Once again, you just want the explanations to sound sciencey, in a way that you, a non-scientist, think science should sound…which is an awful lot like religious apologetics.

You also insist once again that I said the opposite of what I actually wrote. I said that when we have ten thousand pages of Greek texts on a subject, and if a thousand pages are wrong, it’s because the scholars were being thorough and specific and providing information that could be tested and verified. They were more specific than ol’ Mo, who scribbled down a two-sentence paraphrase of the Greek that was so vague and non-specific, it has zero scientific value. It’s not even wrong. It’s not even right.

By the way, ‘alaqa’ is not a recognized embryonic stage, and the term is so fuzzy with multiple meanings that it would be useless if it were. Might as well talk about the ‘blob’ stage or the ‘gooey’ stage or the ‘splotch’ stage.

They were more specific than ol’ Mo, who scribbled down a two-sentence paraphrase of the Greek that was so vague and non-specific, it has zero scientific value. It’s not even wrong. It’s not even right.

O.k Pz how do you not agree with me that even the chronology is irrefutable? also are you asserting that there is no any specificity in those seven stages at all, or the current level of specificity is not scientifically satisfying?

How can you tell? Please set up some objective set of criteria by which I can judge this statement. If presented with a text, how can you tell if it’s of divine origin?

The Criteria is that an explanation about human embryological development which is prophesied in the 7th century without any human ability to observe such thing is in the 21st century scientifically verified, to be exact proved by saying its not scientifically contradicted with modern studied human embryology, due the fact they are specific enough to be scientifically studied, analyzed and are verifiable although some atheist biologists may neglect this level of specificity and demand a more specific level of detail in order to attempt to falsify scientifically this 7th century prophecy, but why they do this? because if this truth is contradicting their religious faith that there is not anything like-God ( look they can’t even prove their assertion that God do never existed) So ironic!

Nothing that was “prophesied” in the 7th century was unavailable to Mo. It was based on observations made in the 4th century BCE and extended in the first century. None of the claims in that trivially short Quran quote were amazing, surprising, or impossible to say — they were basically the same broad sketch of gradual change in embryos that were common knowledge among all literate people in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East.

The Criteria is that an explanation about human embryological development which is prophesied in the 7th century without any human ability to observe such thing is in the 21st century scientifically verified, to be exact proved by saying its not scientifically contradicted with modern studied human embryology, due the fact they are specific enough to be scientifically studied, analyzed and are verifiable although some atheist biologists may neglect this level of specificity and demand a more specific level of detail in order to attempt to falsify scientifically this 7th century prophecy, but why they do this? because if this truth is contradicting their religious faith that there is not anything like-God ( look they can’t even prove their assertion that God do never existed)

This is just word-salad. Not only have you completely failed to provide any criteria by which we can judge whether something is “*A PROPHECY FROM A DIVINE ORIGIN*” (hint: putting something in all-caps doesn’t make it any more true or convincing), but you have been unable to write a coherent sentence.

Now, I’ll repeat the question I asked before. Please answer it:

What, specifically, are you claiming Mohamed said that he couldn’t have guessed, and that Galen didn’t mention?

I agree with you about this, those above mentioned three steps don’t need any particular skill, intelligence or detailed knowledge, but those verses are much more different:

If we are intellectually honest what we can understand from those verses are seven stages that the humans embryo takes to develop.

1.They are specific enough to be biologically addressed cuz they are explaining 7 related stages of embryological process.
2.They deserve to be biologically addressed because they the process that they are explaining is a long process.
3.Biologists are able to scientifically study that seven stage process because its specific enough cuz it explains a sperm and ovum mingles and develops into a leech-like (see here its so specific so much so that is explains the physical characteristics of one stage the embryo) the leech-like embryo develops into a lamp of flesh ( see here its also explaining the physical characteristics which an unaided eye can’t observe) ….., the bones the muscles and so.

The question here is how those stages that an unaided eye couldn’t observe are not specific enough to be scientifically refuted or approved?

The second question is how an unaided eye could have speculated which stage is first the muscles stage or the bones or the flesh?

Second, please refrain from speculating about the evil motivations of secular scientists. You’re laughably wrong and it brings nothing to the discussion.

Third, what is, in your mind, the required level of specificity for concluding that a text is divinely inspired? You mention it not being contradicted by modern embryology, but we’ve already been over why this is a very poor argument. If you want to address that, please do so directly instead of simply asserting your position over and over.
I wrote on that subject in #61. Feel free to address that, if you like.

Fourth, you say something about the text being scientifically studied, analyzed and verified. I don’t agree. The text doesn’t contain any statements clear enough to be analyzed scientifically.
I ask that you please outline the exact testable predictions that the text provides. I’ve already addressed why simple chronology is not impressive unless coupled with precise details.

Fifth, I remind you that I asked for objective criteria. You want to be scientific, right? Give me a criterion by which several people can independently evaluate a text and come to the same conclusion about it.. any text, not just this one.

If we are intellectually honest what we can understand from those verses are seven stages that the humans embryo takes to develop. – kalid@73

You wouldn’t know intellectual honesty if it bit you in the bum. It is simply false to claim that the sentences from the Quran outline 7 stages in human embryonic development. Here they are again;

We created man from an essence of clay, then We placed him as a drop of fluid in a safe place. Then We made that drop of fluid into a clinging form, and then We made that form into a lump of flesh, and We made that lump into bones, and We clothed those bones with flesh, and later We made him into other forms. Glory be to God the best of creators.

So this says an embryo starts as clay (it doesn’t), then becomes a drop of fluid (it doesn’t), then becomes a “clinging form” – or leech, if you prefer (it doesn’t), then becomes a lump of flesh (OK, you could describe it as such, but specific it most certainly isn’t), then becomes bones (it doesn’t: at no stage does the embryo consist only of bones), then is clothed with flesh (no: the bones are never without flesh), then into “other forms” (OK, it continues developing after it has both bones and flesh, but again, it couldn’t easily be less specific). So being generous, that’s 2 out of 7 right. Pretty ignorant god you have there, kalid.

What, specifically, are you claiming Mohamed said that he couldn’t have guessed, and that Galen didn’t mention?

see Pz article :

Aristotle and Galen got a lot wrong because they tried to be specific and wrote whole books on the subject; you can read the entirety of Aristotle’s On the Generation of Animals. Galen was prolific and left us about 20,000 pages on physiology and medicine.

You know also that Aristotle based on his embryological studies on chicken embryo and made a completely flawed conclusion.

About Quranic embryology prophecy, look here:

1.They are specific enough to be biologically addressed cuz they are explaining 7 related stages of embryological process.
2.They deserve to be biologically addressed because they the process that they are explaining is a long process.
3.Biologists are able to scientifically study that seven stage process because its specific enough cuz it explains a sperm and ovum mingles and develops into a leech-like (see here its so specific so much so that is explains the physical characteristics of one stage the embryo) the leech-like embryo develops into a lamp of flesh ( see here its also explaining the physical characteristics which an unaided eye can’t observe) ….., the bones the muscles and so.

Tell me why you can’t see this, is it because you are an atheist, you can’t be neutral and intellectually honest, i have already noticed this earlier.

Where does it do that? Oh right. It doesn’t. It doesn’t mention the ovum at all. Kind of a big thing to leave out, isn’t it?
It’s especially telling, since ignorance of the existence of the ovum was par for the course at that time. In other words, the text actually reflect common human understanding of the time.

The question here is how those stages that an unaided eye couldn’t observe are not specific enough to be scientifically refuted or approved?

How do you know these stages are supposed to refer to something that isn’t observable to the naked eye? The text doesn’t say so. There’s nothing about “lump of flesh” that indicates a microscopic thing.

This conclusion is actually part of your interpretation; it’s not in the text itself. Your interpretation is made with knowledge of modern embryology. It’s something you bring to the text in order to make it say what you want it to say.

I’ve already addressed the problems with this. The fact that the text can be interpreted (and added to) in a manner that fits it to modern science is not evidence that the text itself reflects any real understanding of the subject.

The second question is how an unaided eye could have speculated which stage is first the muscles stage or the bones or the flesh?

By observing aborted animal fetuses, I presume. We know that Muhammad likely had opportunity to observe animals, including infants and the occasional miscarriage.

Can you show me anything in the text that couldn’t be derived from simply observations of animals? Remember, in the text, not something you’ve added to it through your interpretation.

Fifth, I remind you that I asked for objective criteria. You want to be scientific, right? Give me a criterion by which several people can independently evaluate a text and come to the same conclusion about it.. any text, not just this one.

The criteria is here:

1.Someone with the qualified knowledge can evaluate a written assertion and extracts the core argument then he must compare with the generally accepted facts, then he must judge if they *Confirm or Contradict*.

2. The entity that makes the evaluation must be neutral.

3.The entity that makes the evaluation and comparison must not be biased.

4.The entity that makes the evaluation comparison and judgment must not be in a conflict of interest with the entity that their assertion is in being judged.

5.The entity that makes the evaluation comparison and judgment must not be Judge and at the same time the Jury.

I think that is clear enough, but if we are dealing with a bias then things will be more and more complex.

What, specifically, are you claiming Mohamed said that he couldn’t have guessed, and that Galen didn’t mention? – me

see Pz article :

Aristotle and Galen got a lot wrong because they tried to be specific and wrote whole books on the subject; you can read the entirety of Aristotle’s On the Generation of Animals. Galen was prolific and left us about 20,000 pages on physiology and medicine. – kalid

You haven’t answered the question I asked. Your quote from PZ’s article does not mention anything Mohamed said that he couldn’t have guessed and that Galen didn’t mention – it doesn’t even mention Mohamed. Nor does PZ’s whole article mention anything that Mohamed couldn’t have guessed and that Galen doesn’t mention. Evidently, you can’t give a proper answer, because in fact the Quran doesn’t include anything on embryology that Mohamed couldn’t have guessed and that Galen didn’t mention, so you try to distract attention by claiming there’s something there I can’t see because I’m an atheist. That’s just pathetic, and it won’t work. Answer the question.

Tell me why you can’t see this, is it because you are an atheist, you can’t be neutral and intellectually honest, i have already noticed this earlier.

This is hilarious, you aren’t intellectually honest since you presuppose an imaginary deity, and a holy book that isn’t a book of mythology fiction. Intellectual honesty requires you to acknowledge there is no evidence of any deity. Without a deity, all holy books are mythology. That is intellectual honesty.

Where does it do that? Oh right. It doesn’t. It doesn’t mention the ovum at all. Kind of a big thing to leave out, isn’t it?
It’s especially telling, since ignorance of the existence of the ovum was par for the course at that time. In other words, the text actually reflect common human understanding of the time.

Exactly in this way your logic is internally contradicting, you said :

Where does it do that?

here you are asking *where* it does do, but the question cannot be asked if they don’t do at all, so i can extract from your question that they Do.

Anyway before i answer your question answer these questoins:

1.DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE SENTENCE *A MINGLING FLUID* MEANS?

2.DO YOU KNOW THE CONTEXT THAT THIS SENTENCE IS USED IS AN EMBRYONIC CONTEXT?

3.CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN SOMEONE SAYS THERE IS A MINGLING FLUID HERE, IT MEANS TWO OR MORE FLUIDS THAT ARE ACTUALLY MINGLING?

Your question:

Where does it do that?

Your answer is here:

As we can understand from the embryonic context that the sentence *MINGLING FLUID* occurs inside the womb, not only in this context but other quranic verses use exactly the word womb to illustrate this.

here you are asking *where* it does do, but the question cannot be asked if they don’t do at all, so i can extract from your question that they Do.

Are you fucking kidding me? Please tell me that was a poor attempt at a joke.

CAN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN SOMEONE SAYS THERE IS A MINGLING FLUID HERE, IT MEANS TWO OR MORE FLUIDS THAT ARE ACTUALLY MINGLING?

First, the ovum isn’t a fluid.

Second, it’s not clearly explained what these “mingling fluids” are. It’s easy to observe that, during sexual intercourse, both man and woman produce fluids. How do you know it’s not referring to that?

Third, depending on the translation, the text doesn’t actually say “mingling fluid” at all. The translation we’ve been referring to says “drop of fluid”.

So, again, where does the text say anything about the ovum? Please be specific.

You haven’t answered the question I asked. Your quote from PZ’s article does not mention anything Mohamed said that he couldn’t have guessed and that Galen didn’t mention – it doesn’t even mention Mohamed. Nor does PZ’s whole article mention anything that Mohamed couldn’t have guessed and that Galen doesn’t mention.

First the articles explains:

1.Galen didn’t mentioned exactly what Mohamed had explained otherwise they would be the same no difference.

2.The article literally mentions the name *MOHAMED*.

Galen didn’t mentioned if two fluids are mingling or even if they are actually mingling at all.

That answers the secend part of your question (what Mohamed said that he couldn’t have guessed and that Galen didn’t mention).

Second, Mohamed couldn’t have guessed the right chronology of those mentioned stages ( even if he studied other animals, he just couldn’t have guessed if one ore more then one fluid are mingling, this needs a microscope).

I think that is clear enough, but if we are dealing with a bias then things will be more and more complex.

I don’t think it’s at all clear. Step 1 is pitifully simplistic and steps 2 to 5 are basically just variations on the same theme, “don’t be biased”, with no explanation of how you detect or guard against such bias.

Let me give it a shot:

First, you take the text itself and you must derive from that the actual information content. In this regard, I mean that you must figure out what the text says with a minimum of interpretation.

This is somewhat similar to your step one, but goes a bit further. Specifically, it rules out the tactic that you’ve been consistently using; injecting your conclusion into the text, via your interpretations.
If interpretation is necessary (as it sometimes may be), the interpretation should itself be unbiased. In other words, if two possible interpretations are possible, you should not favor one over the other, but allow both to proceed to the evaluating stage.

When evaluating, the number of possible interpretations come into play. A text that can support many interpretations is less impressive than one that bears only a few or one. The fewer the possible interpretations, the more specific the text is.

For example, “drop of fluid” could refer to semen, but also to many other things. However, “white-ish drop of sticky fluid that is ejected from the penis during intercourse” refers to semen and not much else. Obviously, the latter statement is more specific and informationally valuable.

If the text bears two interpretations, one that fits the facts and one that doesn’t, then you cannot conclude that the text is confirmed. You can only say that it doesn’t explicitly contradict it. As such, a text open to multiple interpretations is less valuable than one with only a single interpretation.

In the course of an evaluation, if the text is found to conclusively contradict the facts or if no conclusion can be reached, any claim to divine origin must be rejected. Ockham’s Razor demands that such a bold claim must be clearly supported. Simply showing that the text doesn’t contradict the evidence is not sufficient to justify a belief in divine origins.

Second, it’s not clearly explained what these “mingling fluids” are. It’s easy to observe that, during sexual intercourse, both man and woman produce fluids. How do you know it’s not referring to that?

First,

1.while at that time the mainstream psuedo-science about human embryology was the thwarted human in the sperm or in the woman’s blood it’s quite illogical that a goat herder in the midst of the Arabian desert invalidates and refutes this mainstream psuedo-science and in the 7th century and claims that a mingling fluid is actually what the embryo is formed of.

2.he didn’t specifically mentioned what the mingling fluid is: here based on this embryonic context we can understand:

A. That there is actually more than one fluid that is talking part in the process of embryo developmen.

B.That those fluids actually mingle with each other and form and embryo.

Second, if the process ( what types fluids are actually forming the embryo) is so easy to be observed ancient Greek and non Greek psuedo-scientists and physiologist could have speculated this allegedly easy observation.

Remember that ovum is un-observable to the naked eye, and that the vaginal lubricant fluids are not actually a part of the embryo.

Remember that ovum is un-observable to the naked eye, and that the vaginal lubricant fluids are not actually a part of the embryo.

Remember, you are doing nothing other than lying and bullshitting, without one iota of scientific evidence, to form fit a vague reference for poetic imagery to be something divinely inspired and sciency. And given your deity it imaginary, it is nothing but mental masturbation on your part….

Remember that ovum is un-observable to the naked eye, and that the vaginal lubricant fluids are not actually a part of the embryo

So what? The text never mentions the ovum, nor does it rule out the possibility that Muhammad thought that vaginal secretions and sperm together formed the embryo. That’s my friggin point!

The text simply isn’t clear on this. It doesn’t say what these “mingled fluids” are, nor is it even clear that it is talking about “mingled fluids”, since other translations are equally viable.

Let’s try to settle this one point: Do you agree that the text itself doesn’t actually say what these “mingled fluids” are? Do you agree that therefore, any conclusion about these fluids must be, to some degree, an interpretation laid on top of the text?

if two possible interpretations are possible, you should not favor one over the other, but allow both to proceed to the evaluating stage.When evaluating, the number of possible interpretations come into play. A text that can support many interpretations is less impressive than one that bears only a few or one.

First,

I agree with you that the current level of specificity is limited and may not conform with your criteria of specificity but it’s still specific enough to be proved or disproved.

Second,

Some times the interpretation may be subject to semantic manipulation, but the interpretation of those verses can’t be stretched indefinitely because the of:

1.The context: it’s embryology so don’t go too far.

2.Historical relativity: if Mohamed is going to speculate this logic tells us he would have tried either to take the very specific existing psuedo-science or would have attempted to go little bit further and speculated something more specific and complex.

Anyway being vague also mean that there is 50% or 80% or even when based on the context 99% probability of being right and accurate so this alleged generality and little vagueness cannot in anyway equate or mean refutation of its truth that its from a Devine origin.

You know also that Aristotle based on his embryological studies on chicken embryo and made a completely flawed conclusion.

Really? What was Aristotle’s conclusion, and what was wrong about it? Also, please do tell what was inapplicable about his observations of the chick to human embryology. (I don’t think you have the slightest clue.)

if Mohamed is going to speculate this logic tells us he would have tried either to take the very specific existing psuedo-science or would have attempted to go little bit further and speculated something more specific and complex.

I don’t follow this at all. It sounds like you’re saying that he would have to either:
1. copy existing ideas of that time
2. present a different, specific idea

Why are you ruling out the possibility that he would have a general notion of reproduction, perhaps based on experience with animals, and then glossed over the details of which he was unaware? Seems to me that this model would produce exactly the kind of text we see, so why are you ruling it out as an possible scenario?

if two possible interpretations are possible, you should not favor one over the other, but allow both to proceed to the evaluating stage.When evaluating, the number of possible interpretations come into play. A text that can support many interpretations is less impressive than one that bears only a few or one.

We can extract that:

1.Those verses are vague (means neither be proved nor disproved) because thier meaning could be manipulated.

2.That the current interpretation is possible but there could be other possible interpretations so we can’t judge which is the right one.

My interpretation confirms with the exixing scientific evidence, your interpretation says it’s vague this current interpretation may be right but you cannot favor this one on the opportunity cost of the other possible interpretations. So:

A.Do you agree with me that there could be a probability that it could be right?

In my opinion we cannot, from this text alone, make any judgment whatsoever about whether Muhammad’s views of embryology were in accordance with the facts or not. Maybe they were, maybe they weren’t.

We also cannot come to any conclusion about whether Muhammad’s view, correct or incorrect, was a result of divine inspiration. There’s simply no way to tell, based on this text alone.

Given that we can’t come to a firm conclusion in the affirmative, Ockham’s Razor demands that we reject the notion of divine inspiration. After all, if we conclude in favor, we would be forced to accept many other such claims, leading inevitably to a mess of mutually contradictory positions.

Your interpretation is garbage, to prove a presupposition you have, and not what reality is. Reality is that you are imagufacturing bullshit, to prove your presuppositional theory. And you lack the intellectual honesty to question both your motives and methods.

In my opinion we cannot, from this text alone, make any judgment whatsoever about whether Muhammad’s views of embryology were in accordance with the facts or not. Maybe they were, maybe they weren’t.

You didn’t answer my question. Let me rephrase it for you:

You said previously :

if two possible interpretations are possible, you should not favorably
. one over the other, but allow both to proceed to the evaluating stage.When evaluating, the number of possible interpretations come into play. A text that can support many interpretations is less impressive than one that bears only a few or one.

don’t you honor that any more?

If you do still honor your previous statement then my question is:

Do agree with me that there may be a probability that one interpretation could be right? Remember you are not judging any specific interpretation but given that still atheist biologists don’t have any evidence to disprove or prove cuz it’s vague?

(Although Muslim biologists have a scientifically convincing interpretation that proves this Quranic explanation of human embryology)

Hell, do we even have evidence that the views attributed to Muhammed were actually ones he held?Given the schism between the Shiites and Sunnis over that very subject, I’m going to have to go with “no.”

What the hell is that? Is that an attempt change the miss the point of the debate?

do have an evidence that god don’t actually exist or you faithfully accept that because *NO EVIDENCE CAN’T BE AT THE SAME TIME AN EVIDENCE*

Anyway this is not our debate please answer my previous question about probability.

I agree that the term “nutfah” may be translated as “mingling fluids”. I agree that “mingling fluids” could be interpreted as “a combination of sperm and ovum”. I agree that, if this interpretation is accepted, the statement would be in agreement with the facts.

Now, do you agree that this term could also be translated in other ways (such as “drop of fluid”, as in the translation previously cited) and that even if translated as “mingling fluids”, this could be interpreted to refer to some other combination of fluids (e.g. sperm and vaginal secretions, as I suggested earlier)?

I think it’s ‘can you prove me wrong, science?’ Of course, kalid’s not doing science so the answer is ‘not the way you’re doing it’.

—

Don’t worry Pz, i have the exact answer: because Mohamed in the 7th century had a clue about the coming modern 20/21st century technology so he decided to *ovoid* the *overt trap* that ancient Greek pseudo-scientists Fallen in, in order to avoid *being caught in*.

Bonus points for ‘ovoid’! (I LOL-ed.)

But shouldn’t that be 19th century — specifically von Baer? (Yes that first is a link to el poopycabeza. It’s a good talk!)

Kalid: First thing: STOP USING THE BLOCKQUOTE TAG FOR YOUR OWN WORDS. Blockquote is used ONLY when you are directly quoting someone else. Your comments are a total mess because you keep mangling the convention. Stop it. Stop it now.

Here Pz says: “Mohammed avoided the trap of being caught in an overt error here”
The BIG question here is how could Mohamed have Known that being very specific about this issue could be a trap?

Jebus. Mo didn’t know anything. He avoided making some of the same errors that the Greeks did by NOT SAYING ANYTHING. Those two sentences from the Quran are empty noise.

Don’t worry Pz, i have the exact answer: because Mohamed in the 7th century had a clue about the coming modern 20/21st century technology so he decided to *ovoid* the *overt trap* that ancient Greek pseudo-scientists Fallen in, in order to avoid *being caught in*.

I will ask you again, and I insist that you answer this time: what were the mistakes made by those Greek scientists? You can’t say because you don’t know.

Even to use a “mingling of fluids” as a metaphor for the union of sperm and egg is a gross error, and reveals that the author of the metaphor did not understand either cell theory or genetics.

The things that mingle that MATTER are DISCRETE objects. The fluid is merely a carrier, and utterly secondary. Indeed, the fluid part that the male contributes is nothing but water, and the fluid part that the female contributes is also nothing but water. And the fluid part of the embryo is likewise nothing but water.

So in fact there is no mingling of “fluid” at all in any meaningful sense whatsoever. That which mingled that matters are solids suspended in and dissolved in the fluid.

The Koran in flat WRONG in this, and wrong in precisely the way one would expect for a work written by HUMANS, without divine inspiration, for the time.

And no matter how you parse it, in reality the “lump of flesh” stage occurs BEFORE the “clinging form”. The undifferentiated blastocyst is a lump of flesh and occurs before any “leech” like form, and also before a implantation or anything that can remotely be called “clinging”.

The Koran is FLAT WRONG here and wrong is precisely the way one would expect for a book written by HUMANS of that time.

I like your approach of taking what they say literally and showing the problems.

This Science in Qur’an, (SiQ) nonsense typically involves an excessively literalistic interpretation of Qur’anic verses. The Qur’an itself states that some verses have a direct, (i.e. literal) meaning whereas others are interpreted allegorically or metaphorically. What SiQ in actually does is interpret the Qur’an literally while at the same time interpreting science metaphorically. In other words it gets both wrong.

This practise is a major industry with whole careers and “research” institutions founded on it. It is probably an even bigger obstacle to science education in the Muslim world than Harun Yahya’s kooky kreationist krap.

I will ask you again, and I insist that you answer this time: what were the mistakes made by those Greek scientists? You can’t say because you don’t know.

Pz you insist that i don’t understand a bit about science but you are wrong, yes i studied science, also i have black belt in reading, plus that i do really love science more than you do.

Science is not a monopoly or a private property for atheism only, but Science is the empirical mechanism that we could understand God’s design and his knowledge, no matter of what atheist perceptions are.

This following quote, is from:(Historia Animalium)

Here Aristotle says:

Generation from the egg proceeds in an identical manner with all birds, but the full periods from conception to birth differ, as has been said. With the common hen after three days and three nights there is the first indication of the embryo; with larger birds the interval being longer, with smaller birds shorter. Meanwhile the yolk comes into being, rising towards the sharp end, where the primal element of the egg is situated, and where the egg gets hatched; and the heart appears, like a speck of blood, in the white of the egg. This point beats and moves as though endowed with life, and from it two vein-ducts with blood in them trend in a convoluted course [as the egg­substance goes on growing, towards each of the two circumja­cent integuments]; and a membrane carrying bloody fibres now envelops the yolk, leading off from the vein-ducts. A little afterwards the body is differentiated, at first very small and white. The head is clearly distinguished, and in it the eyes, swollen out to a great extent. This condition of the eyes lasts on for a good while, as it is only by degrees that they diminish in size and collapse. At the outset the under portion of the body appears insignificant in comparison with the upper portion. Of the two ducts that lead from the heart, the one proceeds towards the circumjacent integument, and the other, like a navel-string, towards the yolk. The life-element of the chick is in the white of the egg, and the nutriment comes through the navel-string out of the yolk.

When the egg is now ten days old the chick and all its parts are distinctly visible. The head is still larger than the rest of its body, and the eyes larger than the head, but still devoid of vision. The eyes, if removed about this time, are found to be larger than beans, and black; if the cuticle be peeled off them there is a white and cold liquid inside, quite glittering in the sunlight, but there is no hard substance whatsoever. Such is the condition of the head and eyes. At this time also the larger internal organs are visible, as also the stomach and the arrangement of the viscera; and the veins that seem to proceed from the heart are now close to the navel. From the navel there stretch a pair of veins; one towards the membrane that envelops the yolk (and, by the way, the yolk is now liquid, or more so than is normal), and the other towards that membrane which envelops collectively the membrane wherein the chick lies, the membrane of the yolk, and the intervening liquid. [For, as the chick grows, little by little one part of the yolk goes upward, and another part downward, and the white liquid is between them; and the white of the egg is underneath the lower part of the yolk, as it was at the outset.] On the tenth day the white is at the extreme outer surface, reduced in amount, glutinous, firm in substance, and sallow in colour.

The disposition of the several constituent parts is as follows. First and outermost comes the membrane of the egg, not that of the shell, but underneath it. Inside this membrane is a white liquid; then comes the chick, and a membrane round about it, separating it off so as to keep the chick free from the liquid; next after the chick comes the yolk, into which one of the two veins was described as leading, the other one leading into the enveloping white substance. [A membrane with a liquid resembling serum envelops the entire structure. Then comes another membrane right round the embryo, as has been described, separating it off against the liquid. Underneath this comes the yolk, enveloped in another membrane (into which yolk proceeds the navel-string that leads from the heart and the big vein), so as to keep the embryo free of both liquids.]

About the twentieth day, if you open the egg and touch the chick, it moves inside and chirps; and it is already coming to be covered with down, when, after the twentieth day is past, the chick begins to break the shell. The head is situated over the right leg close to the flank, and the wing is placed over the head; and about this time is plain to be seen the membrane resembling an after-birth that comes next after the outermost membrane of the shell, into which membrane the one of the navel-strings was described as leading (and, by the way, the chick in its entirety is now within it), and so also is the other membrane resembling an after-birth, namely that surrounding the yolk, into which the second navel-string was described as leading; and both of them were described as being connected with the heart and the big vein. At this conjuncture the navel­string that leads to the outer after-birth collapses and becomes detached from the chick, and the membrane that leads into the yolk is fastened on to the thin gut of the creature, and by this time a considerable amount of the yolk is inside the chick and a yellow sediment is in its stomach. About this time it discharges residuum in the direction of the outer after-birth, and has residuum inside its stomach; and the outer residuum is white [and there comes a white substance inside]. By and by the yolk, diminishing gradually in size, at length becomes entirely used up and comprehended within the chick (so that, ten days after hatching, if you cut open the chick, a small remnant of the yolk is still left in connexion with the gut), but it is detached from the navel, and there is nothing in the interval between, but it has been used up entirely. During the period above referred to the chick sleeps, wakes up, makes a move and looks up and chirps; and the heart and the navel together palpitate as though the creature were respiring. So much as to generation from the egg in the case of birds.
(Historia Animalium, book 6, 5610-562a20)

Aristotle’s study of the development of embryo birds to include human development, in reading Aristotle’s description one must surely notice the comparison between the membranes and the mammalian after-birth, Aristotle is generalizing his embryological observations from one species to others.

Pz you insist that i don’t understand a bit about science but you are wrong, yes i studied science, also i have black belt in reading, plus that i do really love[mangle] science more than you do.

Fixed that for your idjit.

Science is not a monopoly or a private property for atheism only,

Science ignores your imaginary deity, and is misused to show your deity exists. This is what you have to do first to show your deity isn’t imaginary: Provide physical evidence that would pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural (scientifically explained), origin. Something equivalent to the eternally burning bush. Until then, your deity exists as a delusion in your mind.
Your quote of Aristotle is meaningless. Typical of creobots. You don’t understand evidence.

Wanda: But you think you’re an intellectual, don’t you, ape?
Otto: [superior smile] Apes don’t read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto, they just don’t understand it! Now let me correct you on a couple things, okay? Aristotle was not Belgian! The central message of Buddhism is not “Every man for himself!” And the London Underground is not a political movement! Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked ’em up.

You were asked to cite specifically what was so wrong about Aristotle’s treatment of embryos. Instead, you dumped a big chunk of text from Historia Animalium. You didn’t understand it, did you? Because it’s beautiful: it’s correct. It’s as detailed as you can get with naked eye observations. It focuses on key properties of the embryo. It’s explicit about known variations between species. It is more detailed and more accurate than that brief mention in the Quran. And you don’t even see that by quoting the careful observations of Aristotle, you just completely undermined your entire thesis, that Mo knew more than Aristotle and Galen.

The only error you imagine is that Aristotle is generalizing his embryological observations from one species to others. No, that is quite good and properly done. Also quite correct. Notice, in Aristotle’s description, the emphasis on membranes: that is one of the primary hallmarks of tetrapod development, the elaboration of extensive extra-embryonic membranes. The first cell fate decisions are about the allocation of cells to these membranes, and that’s true in human development, too. The membranes described are also all found in humans, including the yolk sac.

You’ve just made a lovely own goal, and you’re so stupid you don’t even realize it.

One last quote from A Fish Called Wanda:

To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people. I’ve known sheep that could outwit you. I’ve worn dresses with higher IQs!

1.Are you asserting here that truth can only be a truth if we can observe it or empirically prove it?
2.Are you asserting here that the existence of depends directly on our perception of it?

3.Are you asserting here that if we fail to discover the evidence of an alleged truth does that mean it never existed?

No, you moron. What you fail to understand is that you can only honestly make claims about existence if you can observe it or empirically demonstrate it. Something may exist even if you have no way to observe its manifestation, but what that means is that you are not justified AT ALL to make any claims about the existence of that thing.

Pz you insist that i don’t understand a bit about science but you are wrong, yes i studied science, also i have black belt in reading, plus that i do really love science more than you do.

I know it makes you fail good to say these things, but that doesn’t make them true (sound familiar?). You don’t know what science is if you think it could possibly validate your ridiculous supernatural ideas.

Are you asserting here that truth can only be a truth if we can observe it or empirically prove it?

Yes. Your deity doesn’t exist. There is no stupornatural. All figments of idjits imagination.

re you asserting here that the existence of depends directly on our perception of it?

No fuckwit. There are insturments that can see more than my eyes for example, and they are evidence. You have to show you can separate your deity and a delusion in order for your “testament” to be evidence. You can’t do that, as your deity is a figment of your imagination.

Are you asserting here that if we fail to discover the evidence of an alleged truth does that mean it never existed?

Yep. Scientific evidence is needed. Your evidenceless word alone can be and is dismissed.

Now, do you agree that this term could also be translated in other ways (such as “drop of fluid”, as in the translation previously cited) and that even if translated as “mingling fluids”, this could be interpreted to refer to some other combination of fluids (e.g. sperm and vaginal secretions, as I suggested earlier)?

I will answer your questions one by one:

Here you asked:

1. Do you agree that this term could also be translated in other ways (such as “drop of fluid”, as in the translation previously cited)?

First, Here is the verse:

“Verily We created man of a fluid-drop (nutfa), mingling (amshaj) , in order to try him: so We gave him (the gifts of) hearing and sight.” (76:2).

My answer of the first question is:

1.No i absolutely don’t agree with you about this, you can’t translate the term (Amshaj) in arabic as only a drop of fluid, we cannot interpret one physical characteristic into another different physical characteristic, terms and have linguistically different meanings.

In the original text they are included in one sentence the second term (Amshaj> is providing a further physical characteristic of the first term .

You can search the meaning of the word you will get that it never equate the word its meaning is: [means its structure consists of combined mixtures]

For example, if you publish a descriptive text explaining the physical characteristics of a newly discovered deep creatures, and you said: ( Many of these organisms are blind and rely on their other senses,Those that aren’t blind have large and sensitive eyes).

What about if i ask this question about the possible interpretations of these terms

1.Do you agree that this term could also be translated in other ways (such as “Sensitive eyes”, as in the translation previously cited)?

The answer is NO because the second term is describing a further characteristic of the first term so we cannot interpret that they could have the same translational meaning.

In the second part of your question:
Here you asked:

…and that even if translated as “mingling fluids”, this could be interpreted to refer to some other combination of fluids (e.g. sperm and vaginal secretions, as I suggested earlier)?

Second, here there is a little bit vagueness, but when we put it in an embryonic context (as long as that those Quranic verses were addressing human embryology we cannot go too far and apply some other interpretation that do no fit in this embryonic context) because if we try to twist the whole concept and put it in a non-embryonic context here we detect some bias.

Third, If we are neutral and honest about this evaluation, we have to try to give minimum interpretation but in our interpretation we must take the most linguistically relative meaning of those terms in the human embryonic context.

If you ask why we have to take those meanings that are linguistically relative meanings to our embryonic context?

The answer is: because those Quranic verses address human embryology so we must not interpret those verses in an interpretation that makes it out of the embryonic context. (even the vaginal secretions are not embryonic stages, all though they take part in the process of the sexual intercourse, but they are out of the context, the context here is the stages of the human embryo development).

What about if i ask this question about the possible interpretations of these terms

If your argument *snicker* of poetic imagery relies on interpretation, your interpretation is wrong, since you are headed toward a presuppositional lie.

Second, here there is a little bit vagueness,

A bit of vagueness? Try nothing specific and well defined. Which is what is required by science. The minute you hit “might be” or “maybe” or “could be read”, you aren’t being anything other than presuppositional.

s: because those Quranic verses address human embryology

They don’t, and your evidenced claims that they are are laughed at, as they should be.. You are one stupid fuckwit.

The answer is: because those Quranic verses address human embryology so we must not interpret those verses in an interpretation that makes it out of the embryonic context. (even the vaginal secretions are not embryonic stages, all though they take part in the process of the sexual intercourse, but they are out of the context, the context here is the stages of the human embryo development).

I’m having a bit of trouble with what you’re saying here, Kalid. I mean, WE know, now, that vaginal secretions don’t play a role in the development of the embryo, but did Mohammed? It seems to me entirely possible that when the Quran talks about two mingling fluids, it’s talking about vaginal secretions and semen. The only reason you put forward as to why this can’t be the case is the ’embryological context’, but that’s knowledge we have today. You’re trying to fit what we know now onto a text which is vague at best (and flatout wrong at worst). How do you not see this?
I’ll reiterate:
The Quran talks about two mingling fluids.
You claim this is referring two the merging of sperm and ovum.
When asked how you know this is what it refers to, rather than, say, vaginal secretions, you cite an ’embryological context’. But to know what this embryological context entails, you already need a modern (well more modern than 7th century anyway) understanding of embryology/reproductive biology. That seems like something of an issue to me, Kalid.

Aristotle is generalizing his embryological observations from one species to others. No, that is quite good and properly done. Also quite correct.

Pz you didn’t understand my point, because you are too emotional please don’t be so hard to yourself.

You said:

Notice, in Aristotle’s description, the emphasis on membranes: that is one of the primary hallmarks of tetrapod development, the elaboration of extensive extra-embryonic membranes. The first cell fate decisions are about the allocation of cells to these membranes, and that’s true in human development, too. The membranes described are also all found in humans, including the yolk sac.

I’m sorry Pz but this *emphasis on membranes* is not sufficient to make Aristotle’s generalization *correct* as you said:

that is quite good and properly done. Also quite correct.

here is the differences between chick embryo and human embryo:

1.Chick has yolk, human not so human placenta development and implantation. Chick dependent on yolk nutrients, human not. Human embryo gets mother nutrients through placenta. Chorion formation and finally from it the fetal portion of the placenta. Chorion also includes the uterine cells to form the maternal of the placenta, the decidua. The decidua will come rich in the blood vessels that will provide oxygen & nutrients to the embryo. Human oviduct expansion to the uterus.

2.Chick embryo externally developing from the mother, human not. Chick egg is telocithal with a small disc of cytoplasm: blastodisc – sitting atop a large yolk. The yolk, eggs of birds undergo discoidal meroblastic cleavage. Cleavage occurs only in the blastodisc which is about 2-3 mm in diameters & is located at the animal pole of the egg. The first cleavage furrow appears centrally in the blastodisc; other cleavages follow to create a single-layered blastoderm. The cleavages do not extend into the yolk, cytoplasm, so the early-cleavage cells are continuous with one another & with the yolk at their bases.

3.One chick hypoblast streak, human multiple. Chick must have some control mechanism.

Here i can’t see the generalization that you and your beloved Aristotle are talking about, Pz we are not living in the age of ancient Greek pseudo-scientists but we do live in 2014 so please don’t be so hard to yourself.

here you also asked me:

You were asked to cite specifically what was so wrong about Aristotle’s treatment of embryos.

I am sorry that i didn’t mention this on the previous comment, but here you go:

Aristotle believed that the embryo essentially formed by coagulation in the uterus immediately after mating when the form-building principle of the male acted on the material substance provided by the female.

Pz you didn’t understand my point, because you are too emotional please don’t be so hard to yourself.

You are too intellectually dishonest to admit you have neither point nor evidence, and are one stupid and condescending fuckwitted idjit. Don’t be to hard on yourself for exposing your idiocy to the world.

I think i answered your questions Pz.

*snicker* You want personal attacks on your “intellectual honesty” to stop? I suggest you shut the fuck up, and fade into the bandwidth.

You still haven’t answered the question that shows you do have intellectual honesty. What evidence is required for you to admit you are wrong. Then we will provide it.

Aristotle was quite clear in explicitly stating that he was describing bird development. He did not claim to be describing human development, because it is quite difficult to do that. But his descriptions are still valid: humans don’t have yolk, but they still make a yolk sac. All of the same membranes are present.

You finally mentioned one thing Aristotle got wrong. He thought the embryo was formed from…a mingling of fluids. The very thing Mo claimed was the basis of human development.

Wow, you are giving an embryologist lessons about embryology? xDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD Oh, kalid….you are almost funny.

Your complete failure to recognize the commonalities between different amniote groups just goes to show how superficial your knowledge about embryology is. Chicks come from eggs, humans come from a uterus, how could they possibly have anything in common??? Duuuuuuhhhhhhhh.
You’ve read some stuff about the subject and in your arrogance you have concluded that that is everything there could possibly be to know about it and that it makes you an expert whose understanding is superior to that of an actual, working embryologist.

You are wrong. Unfortunately you are too ignorant to be able to recognize how wrong you are, so i fulyl expect you will continue to claim the incredibly inane shit you have been claiming.

You finally mentioned one thing Aristotle got wrong. He thought the embryo was formed from…a mingling of fluids. The very thing Mo claimed was the basis of human development.

PZ, WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT?

Man are you trying to cut the wrong parts of the flawed assumptions of your beloved friend Aristotle?

Aristotle believed that the embryo essentially formed by coagulation in the uterus immediately after mating when the form-building principle of the male acted on the material substance provided by the female.

So here you are trying to cut this wrong part of the statement:

Aristotle got wrong. He thought the embryo was formed from…a mingling of fluids.

here is what Aristotle actually believed:

that the embryo essentially formed by coagulation in the uterus immediately after mating.

and you are trying to replace it with this exactly scientific part, that you have copied from the Quran:

a mingling of fluid, (when put in any actual human embryonic context.)

Wow, PZ i have to admit that i am impressed your high skills in twisting facts, honestly here you have just uncovered your hidden wishes.

PZ, it could have been a great thing if Aristotle have had avoided this error and instead used ( Mingling fluids) a little bit vague but when put in an embryonic context be exactly matches the scientific facts).

I’ll reiterate:
The Quran talks about two mingling fluids.
You claim this is referring two the merging of sperm and ovum.
When asked how you know this is what it refers to, rather than, say, vaginal secretions, you cite an ‘embryological context’. But to know what this embryological context entails, you already need a modern (well more modern than 7th century anyway) understanding of embryology/reproductive biology. That seems like something of an issue to me, Kalid.

You said:

But to know what this embryological context entails, you already need a modern (well more modern than 7th century anyway) understanding of embryology/reproductive biology.

This is exactly how bias and pre-determined judgments works.

If you are honestly evaluating the Quranic embryological argument, how could you pre-assume that;

you already need a modern (well more modern than 7th century anyway) understanding of embryology/reproductive biology.

Pre-assuming that 7th century Quranic embryonic explanations are wrong and modern understanding of embryology/reproductive biology is right? without even providing any evidences about where it contradicts with the modern biology of human embryology?

Note:
(Everyone agrees that there is not contradiction between Quran and Modern biology of embryology but some biologists like PZ Myers insist that they are too vague to be scientifically judged if wrong or right)

You seem that your question is self-defeating, and you are trying to deceive your self by asking this inconsistent question!

Note:
I’m sorry if my language is a little bit harsh but i don’t mean any offence.

Nope. Aristotle argued that conception was the combination of seminal fluid mixing with menstrual fluid/blood, inducing a coagulation into form. He had no idea about cells. He wasn’t even aware of the relative contributions of mother and father. The Quran verses are nothing but brief paraphrases of the bare bones of Aristlean embryology.

And no, “mingling fluids” is not how we think of fertilization anymore. It’s a fusion of two haploid cells.

you are trying to replace it with this exactly scientific part, that you have copied from the Quran:

It is not exact, it is not scientific and it is not copied.
PZ knows very well that “mingling of fluids” does NOT “exactly match scientific facts”. In fact he explicitely says it is WRONG. You should aswell since it has been pointed out before. It is extremely dishonest of you to ignore that and pretend that he is claiming that “mingling of fluids” is in any way exact, scientific or factual.

Your extreme dishonesty is fully noted. You are no longer entertaining.

Kalid,So, I mixed a rum and Coke last hight. Both rum and Coke are fluids. Why didn’t I get a fetus?

Now your question seems honest, actually it’s a pretty good question.

Here is the answer:

Because when Quran is explaining seven stages of human embryonic development (no matter how vague or specific enough) it addresses human embryology, but the two fluids that you’ve mixed up earlier has nothing to do with the human embryonic development.

Because when Quran is explaining seven stages of human embryonic development

Why do you keep repeating this obvious lie. The two sentences are not science, not meant to be science, and are just poetic imagery from an ignorant fool. And only more ignorant fools pretend otherwise, and I’m looking at you….

Pre-assuming that 7th century Quranic embryonic explanations are wrong and modern understanding of embryology/reproductive biology is right? without even providing any evidences about where it contradicts with the modern biology of human embryology?

Note:
(Everyone agrees that there is not contradiction between Quran and Modern biology of embryology but some biologists like PZ Myers insist that they are too vague to be scientifically judged if wrong or right)

You seem that your question is self-defeating, and you are trying to deceive your self by asking this inconsistent question!

NOPE! Nope, nope, nope!
You misunderstand completely. Let me put it more simply:
You’re all like: ‘look how amaziingly accurate the quran is whan it talks about embryology. Look here mixing fluids, that’s totally sperm and eggs merging, y’all’
Us, on the other hand: ‘Yeah, two fluids, great. But how do you know it’s not, you know, talking about vaginal secretions?’
You again: ‘It can’t be talking about vaginal secretions, because of the embryological context. Vaginal secretions aren’t involved in embryological development or anything, so there.’
Now my question is: How the hell do you know that Mohammed knew that vaginal secretions weren’t involved in creating an embryo?
It seems to me the only reason you think the text of the Quran isn’t talking about vaginal secretions, is because if it is, that would mean the text is wrong. You’re assuming the Quran can’t be wrong so the text must be talking about sperm and ovum. You’re the biased one here, buster!

Note:
I’m sorry if my language is a little bit harsh but i don’t mean any offence.

What the fuck is an essence of clay? Why the fuck are you ignoring the “first stage” when it makes no sense to think of it as a stage at all, since it precedes what is supposedly the sperm enterring the vagina and then the ovum? And I have yet to see a coherent defense from kalid of why Momo doth declare that there is at one point a skinless fetus made of bone. Sophisticated theoembryology!

In fact he explicitely says it is WRONG. You should aswell since it has been pointed out before. It is extremely dishonest of you to ignore that and pretend that he is claiming that “mingling of fluids” is in any way exact, scientific or factual.

First, Pzmyers and any other prominent biologist would have never said that Quranic embryological explanations are wrong, they only claimed that those verses are too vague to be sceintifically proved or disproved (although they neglected a significant specificity that could be taken in to account).

Only someone who is ignorant about both the Quran and biological emborology would make the assertion that Quran and emborology are in conflict.

Second, I didn’t said that PZ claimed “that the term *mingling fluid* is exact” you didn’t read my previous comment, actually it was me, i said:

and you are trying to replace it with this exactly scientific part.

Third, I said the *mingling fluid* in sceintifically exact, although it may seem a little bit vague to some people.
Its biologically exact because:

1.Quran addresses several stages of human embryo development.

2.Do to the fact that Quran addresses issues related and/or actually attempting to explain human embryology, any attempt of interpretation of those Quranic explanations on the subject must be based on the context of the known facts of human embryology.

3.As long as those Qurainc explanations concern human embryology after we agree this premise and after we put and tested those Quranic embryonic explanations on the available knowledge and facts about human embryonic development: <for illustration lets test the Quranic embryonic explanations and put under the microscope of different facts by different civilizations)

(Here in our illustration we will use different degrees of knowledge with different civilizations).

1.here for example we are in 7th century we are testing Quran embryonic explanations under the microscope of ancient Greek knowledge:

The results would be like this :

A.Quran says a *mingling drop of fluid* is actually what the embryo is composed.

While Aristotle says that a seminal fluid mixing with menstrual blood is what the embryo is composed.

Here is the first result:

a. at this time Quranic embryonic explanation would be psuedo-sceintifically refuted because:

I.When Quran is using this explanation *a mingling fluid* or (Nutfa) is forming the embryo it invalidates the existing psuedo-sceince claim that the fluid must include menstrual blood.

Remember, those who believed Aristotle's claims were mocking of what the Quran said because it conflicted with thier psuedo-sceince.

Note: if you know some Arabic there is no way in any circumstance that the arabic word (Nutfa) could mean a blood, menstrual blood or any other form of blood.

I. The Quran refutes the formationist claim that a thwarted human is inside either the sperm or in the female womb, by asserting that the embryo takes different stages and only in the last stages the embryo takes a human shape.

3.Finally, lets test Quranic embryonic explanation on the light and under the microscope of modern biology of human embryology.

Here results would be like this:

A.Quran says a *mingling drop of fluid* is actually what the embryo is composed.

While modern biology of human embryology using latest technology says: the embryo is composed at first with mingling or fusion of an sperm cell and an ovum cell.

Here the first result is:

a.Quran exactly confirms with the modern biology of human embryology because:

I.In the context of modern human embryology we know that two substances are mingling or fussing with each other.

II.Quran talks about mingling fluids, so only more than one fluids could mingle with each other.

III. The fact is that in modern embryology only two, cells can from different sexes could form an embryo, Quran as long as it addresses embryonic development we can only interpret the mingling fluid as sperm and ovum, because they're the only' two things that could mingle or fuse with each other and at the same time as Quran explained could form an embryo.

Except there is no bone fetus stage nor any clay spermatogenesis stage.

A.Quran says a *mingling drop of fluid* is actually what the embryo is composed.

It isn’t. Even ignoring that the drops are really a single cell meeting another single cell….the embryo is not the zygote. The zygote is egg plus sperm. It then multiplies and differentiates and creates the embryo. The embryo is not composed of mingled egg and sperm. You lose already.

Note: if you know some Arabic there is no way in any circumstance that the arabic word (Nutfa) could mean a blood, menstrual blood or any other form of blood.

Great. It doesn’t mean cells either. You “win” because the Quran was vague. Pathetic.

Please, tell us what the REAL stages of embryonic development are. And show us how it matches up oh so wonderfully with what your holy book says. Our lying eyes apparently won’t allow us to see the obvious connection ourselves. Please, elaborate.

What the fuck is an essence of clay? Why the fuck are you ignoring the “first stage” when it makes no sense to think of it as a stage at all, since it precedes what is supposedly the sperm enterring the vagina and then the ovum? And I have yet to see a coherent defense from kalid of why Momo doth declare that there is at one point a skinless fetus made of bone. Sophisticated theoembryology!

First, i don’t know if you’ve ever studied anything about the Quran, but when Quran is talking about that man is created from clay, Quran refers to the initial creation of man not as a stage in human embryonic development.

Note:
(This not even a contraversial issue, there’s more than one verse that Quran clearly refers the creation from clay as the initial creation of Adam.)

Second, carbonic acid, water and other elements take part in the process of clay formation, ask Wikipedia that means clay cannot always be pure silicon and aluminium, it can also contain water and air.

That mean that unpure clay could contain those chemical elements like (oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus).

Those elements may be mixed with the clay, since it’s difficult to find in earth a pure clay:

1.Oxygen in the clay comes from the water <as we know that the clay that is formed by the weathering process carried by wind settles in low areas like sea and river basins.

2.Also the hydrogen comes from the water.

3.the carbon comes from the carbonic acid that takes part in the process.

4.Where the nitrogen comes from the plenty air (nitrogen composes a large portion of earth's air)

5.as the process of weathering takes more time and vast geological areas the phosphorus element would include.

The DNA and the RNA a composed up of those same elements, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen and phosphorus.

In this way the first human was created by God.

The mechanism that God created Adam was one word *BE* the mechanical explanation of this creation could be simple integration of those very basic chemical elements to form life. (by God)

Exactly in this way every and each human that had ever existed will be recreated when known life in earth comes in to an end and supernova eats our sun and our galaxy collides with another galaxy.

When everything settles down, those very basic elements that once caused us to live will reintegrate just like the first time when life began on earth.

Note:
(If you doubt about the recreation and judgement day and you think that when you die you seized for ever, now this sceintific fact:

1.Matter can't be created nor it can be destroyed.
As long as matter is a form of energy.

When you die your DNA chemical composition will disintegrate but you will never go any where, so those specific chemical elements that formed your DNA will reintegrate again just like before when first life started.

The law that says matter can't be created nor it can be destroyed is consistent with what god says that, humans never actually sieze existence, just temporary death and recreation and finally eternal domination in hell or eternal enjoyment in heaven /paradise. So matter never destroy.

First, Pzmyers and any other prominent biologist would have never said that Quranic embryological explanations are wrong, they only claimed that those verses are too vague to be sceintifically proved or disproved (although they neglected a significant specificity that could be taken in to account).

No fuckwit, they are WRONG due to lack of specificity. All you have is poetic imagery. Nothing else. Other that your delusion you are right. You can’t even show your deity isn’t imaginary. Pathetic.

Kalid: “First, Pzmyers and any other prominent biologist would have never said that Quranic embryological explanations are wrong, they only claimed that those verses are too vague to be sceintifically proved or disproved…”

Kalid, there is a famous story of the physicist Wolfgang Pauli reviewing a paper and suddenly shouting out, “This is terrible. It’s so bad, it’s not even wrong!”

There are worse things than being wrong. Being vague is one of them. Wrong can be corrected. Vague is bullshit.

First, i don’t know if you’ve ever studied anything about the Quran, but when Quran is talking about that man is created from clay, Quran refers to the initial creation of man not as a stage in human embryonic development.

My emphasis.

I thought you said that this text had to be interpreted in an embryonic context. Why are you suddenly now saying the opposite?

We created man from an essence of clay, then We placed him as a drop of fluid in a safe place. Then We made that drop of fluid into a clinging form, and then We made that form into a lump of flesh, and We made that lump into bones, and We clothed those bones with flesh, and later We made him into other forms. Glory be to God the best of creators.

The Seven Stages of Embryonic Development (according to kalid):

Stage one: This is not a stage of embryonic development. You stupid atheists, and your simplistic mindsets, unwilling to your open mind and unwilling to see the scientific revelations clearly laid out in the Quran. Clearly, clay is what life came from, because it is made of atoms, just like humans are. Checkmate.
Stage two: Fluids could only possible refer to sperm and egg cells!!!1!!1eleven
Stage three: See two and then praise Allah.
Stage four: The sperm and egg fluids were turned into solid flesh! That is totally how embryonic development works! Oh Mohammed, you scientific pioneer, you!
Stage five: What the fuck!!? The embryo turned into a lump of bone! It is a living skeleton! KILL IT WITH FIRE!!!!
Stage six: Oh, now more flesh now. What the fuck was up with that last step?
Stage seven: Prophet!!

The law that says matter can’t be created nor it can be destroyed is consistent with what god says that, humans never actually sieze existence, just temporary death and recreation and finally eternal domination in hell or eternal enjoyment in heaven /paradise. So matter never destroy. </blockquote cite?

You could use the same logic to say that a house burned to cinders wasn't destroyed and the house still exists, since ash and smoke and whatever from the house is still around. But that would be stupid. Just like saying that a dead person must still exist because carbon from their rotted corpse was absorbed by the soil. Fucking inanity.

Of it were just “clay” it would be barely passable as a metaphor. But adding “essence” makes it simply plain wrong, and betrays a writer still wedded to the discredited ideas of vitalism and platonic ideal forms.

So again it is flat wrong and wrong in precisely the ways we would expect of a work written by humans for that time and place.

So again it is flat wrong and wrong in precisely the ways we would expect of a work written by humans for that time and place.

Which is why Kahlid, you must provide conclusive physical evidence your deity isn’t imaginary, and exists elsewhere than your feeble mind. It is a real physical thing. Or the “divine revelation” falls apart utterly and totally…..No deity, no revelation…..

I thought you said that this text had to be interpreted in an embryonic context. Why are you suddenly now saying the opposite?

I’m sorry if i wasn’t clear enough, let me rephrase it for you:

I said:

but when Quran is talking about that man is created from clay, Quran refers to the initial creation of man not as a stage in human embryonic development.

I can demonstrate that Quran here (the initial clay stage) is not referring in anyway to embryonic development, but the initial creation of Adam.

1.There are more then a dozen of Quranic verses that explicitly and literally referring the essence of man’s creation is from clay not in embryonic development but the initial creation of Adam. here is one example:

It is We Who Created you and gave you shape; then We bade the Angels bow down to Adam, and they bowed down; not so Iblis; he refused to be of those who bow down. (Allah) said: ‘What prevented thee from bowing down when I commanded thee? He said: ‘I am better than he: Thou didst create me from fire, and him from clay. (Allah) said: ‘Get thee down from this: it is not for thee to be arrogant here: get out, for thou art of the meanest (of creatures). He said: ‘Give me respite till the day they are raised up. (Allah) said: ‘Be thou amongst those who have respite.’ He said: ‘Because thou hast thrown me out of the Way, lo! I will lie in wait for them on thy Straight Way: Then will I assault them from before them and behind them, from their right and their left: Nor wilt Thou find, in most of them, gratitude (of Thy mercies).’ (Allah) said: ‘Get out from this, disgraced and expelled. If any of them follow thee – Hell will I fill with you all. (The Noble Quran, 11-18)

Here in this historic narrative Quran is narrating a past event when God first created Adam, here when God orders Satan to bow for Adam, Satan refuses and disobeys, here he is justifying his jealousy and he believes that bowing for Adam is humiliating him, he bases his decision that he is superior then Adam because he is made up of flame which strength and Adam is made up of Clay which us he believes its quality is inferior compared to him.

So, this is the clay that Quran is referring.

2.Its very illogical and even impossible that Mohamed had ever thought that a literal clay is poured inside the vagina to the womb to form a human embryo.

I can demonstrate that Quran here (the initial clay stage) is not referring in anyway to embryonic development, but the initial creation of Adam.

Bullshit. You said that this text should be read in an embryological context. You even specifically ruled out any associated phenomena, such as sexual intercourse. Now suddenly, we’ve got the original creation of man in there.
It’s a clearly motivated choice on your part. You’ve got a certain conclusion already in mind and you’ll twist the text however you need to to reach that. It’s really quite transparent.

You can certainly make an argument for the interpretation you mention, but you can’t demonstrate jack shit. I mean, are you going to tell me that the Qur’an never uses a single word in more than one meaning? It’s completely impossible that it might actually mean “clay”, just once in a while?

For example, isn’t it possible that Muhammad was deliberately referencing the original creation of mankind as a whole. In other words, he might consider the new fetus somehow a repetition of the original event, as a way of saying that each new life is, in some way, a miraculous demonstration of god’s power? Under that reading, isn’t it possible that he really did mean “clay”?

Never mind the likelihood, at the moment (we can argue about that later). Are you honest enough to admit that this is even a possible reading?

P.S.
Have you noticed that you’re now only claiming six stages of embryological development, not seven?

Well, one thing is quite clear: The relevant context of interpretation has a funny way of changing from moment to moment, to fit whatever point kalid wants to make.

When it’s convenient that the text is to be read as pure embryology and nothing else; that’s the only possible reading. When later part of the text becomes embarrassing and has to be read differently, then that is the only possible reading.

There are worse things than being wrong. Being vague is one of them. Wrong can be corrected. Vague is bullshit.

Man, as i said previously this level of specificity when applied in an embryonic context the vagueness is decreased into non-existence.

Here i said:

3.Finally, lets test Quranic embryonic explanation on the light and under the microscope of modern biology of human embryology.

Here results would be like this:

A.Quran says a *mingling drop of fluid* is actually what the embryo is composed.

While modern biology of human embryology using latest technology says: the embryo is composed at first with mingling or fusion of an sperm cell and an ovum cell.

Here the first result is:

a.Quran exactly confirms with the modern biology of human embryology because:

I.In the context of modern human embryology we know that two substances are mingling or fussing with each other.

II.Quran talks about mingling fluids, so only more than one fluids could mingle with each other.

III. The fact is that in modern embryology only two, cells can from different sexes could form an embryo, Quran as long as it addresses embryonic development we can only interpret the mingling fluid as sperm and ovum, because they’re the only’ two things that could mingle or fuse with each other and at the same time as Quran explained could form an embryo.

Denying this level of specificity when applied in to an embryonic context is a complete bias, because:

When we apply it in to this context the fact becomes so clear and vagueness diminishes, but you cannot see this level or admit its specificity, because:

1.First, If you admit this level of specificity your pre-determined judgments (that this cannot in any circumstances be true) will be compromised, so in order to avoid this you need to neglect this level of specificity (to be exact when applied in to embryonic context).

2.Second, your denial can only be addressed using psychology because all your judgments and perceptions are routed in your psychological situation.

For example, you know when someone loses his beloved person (a person who is dear to him), some people got screwed up, it may cause to them a psychological trauma (psychological shock), this may cause that person to deny the reality that his beloved one has died, sometimes they never accept this reality, and they take the rest of their life with delusion that he/she is actually alive (although he/she died).

So here we see the truth becoming so clear before our eyes and the vagueness is diminished when we put those verses into an embryonic context.

But a lot of people won’t accept this because their judgment is biased and pre-supposed.

Are you saying that i have invented this interpretation (that Quran is referring to the initial creation of man but not embryology)?

Well i will agree with about this but only if you say again that their is noway Quran is referring to the initial creation.

How you couldn’t get this?

I said:

There are more then a dozen of Quranic verses that explicitly and literally referring the essence of man’s creation is from clay not in embryonic development but the initial creation of Adam. here is one example:

It is We Who Created you and gave you shape; then We bade the Angels bow down to Adam, and they bowed down; not so Iblis; he refused to be of those who bow down. (Allah) said: ‘What prevented thee from bowing down when I commanded thee? He said: ‘I am better than he: Thou didst create me from fire, and him from clay. (Allah) said: ‘Get thee down from this: it is not for thee to be arrogant here: get out, for thou art of the meanest (of creatures). He said: ‘Give me respite till the day they are raised up. (Allah) said: ‘Be thou amongst those who have respite.’ He said: ‘Because thou hast thrown me out of the Way, lo! I will lie in wait for them on thy Straight Way: Then will I assault them from before them and behind them, from their right and their left: Nor wilt Thou find, in most of them, gratitude (of Thy mercies).’ (Allah) said: ‘Get out from this, disgraced and expelled. If any of them follow thee – Hell will I fill with you all. (The Noble Quran, 11-18)

Do you claim that this verse is not quoted from the Quran?

Or you want to say that its not clear about referring the initial creation of man?

If you admit that the quoted verse (Quran, 11-18) is original, and that the meaning is quite clear, how did i twisted the meaning? i have just quoted a Quranic verse to back my conclusion.

are you going to tell me that the Qur’an never uses a single word in more than one meaning?

No i am not telling you that Quran never uses a single word in more than one meaning.

For example, isn’t it possible that Muhammad was deliberately referencing the original creation of mankind as a whole.

Yes.

he might consider the new fetus somehow a repetition of the original event, as a way of saying that each new life is, in some way, a miraculous demonstration of god’s power? Under that reading, isn’t it possible that he really did mean “clay”?

So, this proposed possible interpretation says “May be Quran is referring that the man and the woman who are making the sexual intercourse may be they secret some clay (for example the man he may be ejaculating a some clay first then a semen and sperm, or the women may secret some clay to mingle with the clay from the man).

WHAT THE HELL COULD THIS LOGIC BE?

If we compare and evaluate these two possible interpretations:

The first interpretation get some evidence to back it, ( remember the verse {Quran, 11-18} that was an explicit evidence that Quran refers the clay to the initial creation of man).

The second interpretation, before we judge if its valid interpretation or invalid:

Do you have any evidence with the Quran that Quran is referring an actual clay is literally taking part in the process of the embryo development?

If you show the evidence within the Quran that Quran is referring an actual clay is literally taking part in the process of the embryo development, then we may accept your interpretation.

Note:
Remember your evidence that you come up from the Quran (which is supporting your second interpretation that it may refer to actual clay) must be as explicit and clear as the first evidence that was referring to the initial creation.

If you make your point clear we may come in to an agreement.

footnote:
[Be honest, be unbiased, be neutral] because you are in the process of evaluation remember your

Well, one thing is quite clear: The relevant context of interpretation has a funny way of changing from moment to moment, to fit whatever point kalid wants to make.

LETS APPLY YOUR TEXT EVALUATION CRITERIA TO JUDGE BETWEEN THE TWO PROPOSED POSSIBLE INTERPRETATIONS, WHICH IS VALID AND WHICH IS INVALID.

First, you take the text itself and you must derive from that the actual information content. In this regard, I mean that you must figure out what the text says with a minimum of interpretation.
This is somewhat similar to your step one, but goes a bit further. Specifically, it rules out the tactic that you’ve been consistently using; injecting your conclusion into the text, via your interpretations.
If interpretation is necessary (as it sometimes may be), the interpretation should itself be unbiased. In other words, if two possible interpretations are possible, you should not favor one over the other, but allow both to proceed to the evaluating stage.

I gave you an evidence within the same text that it refers to the initial creation, so you also need to provide an evidence that contradicts this one or refers to your interpretation explicitly ( i said explicitly, because the first interpretation has an explicit reference).

Even ignoring the fact that it is incorrect (at no point in development is the embryo composed solely of bone), the text in the quran IS vague, it IS extremely superficial and that’s why it can be shoehorned into the actual embryological reality that we have discovered through scientific investigation. The text teaches fucking nothing, it has nothing to contribute to embryology. It’s only AFTER we have INDEPENDENTLY discovered all those amazing details of embryonic development that you can look back and claim that hey, it kind of fits what we have had to learn by ourselves. That’s what you are doing…
It’s been pointed out repeteadly that there is nothing, gross errors aside, in the text that cannot be directly observed by anyone who lives in an environment where there is lots of livestock. Absolutely nothing there that is not available for a farmer with nothing but their eyesight.
If looking at nature and superficially observing readily available phenomena is all that is required to be a divinely inspired prophet, then the world is fucking full to the brim with prophets that would put silly, old, inmoral Mohammed to shame.

Bullshit. You said that this text should be read in an embryological context. You even specifically ruled out any associated phenomena, such as sexual intercourse.

Yes i agree with you.

Now suddenly, we’ve got the original creation of man in there.

Yes i agree with you about this.

I don’t think you’ve quite understood what I was saying. Let me ask you more directly: Is this text to be interpreted exclusively in an embryological context or not?

Are you saying that i have invented this interpretation (that Quran is referring to the initial creation of man but not embryology)?

No. I’m saying that it’s not the only possible interpretation. I’m saying that just because the Qur’an in one place uses clay to refer to the first creation of man, it doesn’t mean that all following references to clay necessarily has to refer to that one event.

Do you claim that this verse is not quoted from the Quran?

No. I didn’t claim that. I’m claiming that the text we’re actually discussing is not clear that this event is what’s being referred to. It might be or it might not. Once again, the text doesn’t actually say. Once again, that’s your interpretation. One possible interpretation out of many.

No i am not telling you that Quran never uses a single word in more than one meaning.

Thank you. Now that that’s established, will you agree that it’s possible, just possible, for the comment about “clay” to be read in more than one way? Will you agree that the way you read it is not the only possible reading?

Do you have any evidence with the Quran that Quran is referring an actual clay is literally taking part in the process of the embryo development?

Sure. I claim as my evidence the exact same verses you do.

E.g. how about this scenario: Man and woman copulate and sperm is injected. God takes over and turns the sperm into clay (since we already “know” that’s where people come from). The clay proceeds along the lines of embryological development.

In this way, the reference to clay is both a poetical call-back to the creation of Adam, as well as a practical description of the events that also demonstrate god’s direct involvement and blessing of humanity. It’s both embryology and mythology, in quite a beautiful (if factually wrong) combination.

Can you show me any verses that rule this out as an option? Doesn’t this perfectly align with the text as written and the supporting verses you’ve quoted? Isn’t this a possible interpretation of the text?

I went back to check the text again. I don’t know about translation and the grammar of Arabic, but in English, there’s an interesting detail:

We created man from an essence of clay, then We placed him as a drop of fluid in a safe place.

In English, the “him” clearly refers back to the earlier subject; the man. If the first instance is referring to the creation of Adam, doesn’t it follow that the rest of the text does as well? On the other hand, if the rest is describing the creation of each individual human, then the “man” earlier must also refer to that individual human.

Does Arabic work the same way? Also, if Arabic is anything like Hebrew, then “Adam” means “man”, which just brings in another layer of ambiguity.

On another point, regarding the translation of verse 13, there seems to be some disagreement. I don’t know about authorities on this point, so I just threw the net wide on google and found this:

Sahih International:

Then We placed him as a sperm-drop in a firm lodging.

Muhsin Khan:

Thereafter We made him (the offspring of Adam) as a Nutfah (mixed drops of the male and female sexual discharge) (and lodged it) in a safe lodging (womb of the woman).

Pickthall:

Then placed him as a drop (of seed) in a safe lodging;

Yusuf Ali:

Then We placed him as (a drop of) sperm in a place of rest, firmly fixed;

Shakir:

Then We made him a small seed in a firm resting-place,

Dr. Ghali:

Thereafter We made him a sperm-drop, in an established residence.

You might notice that only one of them say anything about mixed fluids. So, I can conclude that it’s most definitely possible to translate the text in a manner that doesn’t refer to mixing fluids at all. That throws this subject open again.

P.S.
Have you noticed that you’re now only claiming six stages of embryological development, not seven?

NOPE: I never included clay in the seven 7 stages of Quranic explanation of human embryonic development.

The seven stages that Quran explained about embryonic development:

1.The Sperm and Ovum.(Nutfa) [the mingling fluid]

2.Al Alaqa.

(the leech-like) [starts on the 15th day and ends on the 23rd or 24th day, after which the embryo is gradually developed and looks like a leech]

3.Al Mudgha.(the lamp of flesh)

(The embryo is transformed from the stage of alaqa to the beginning of the stage of mudgha on the 24th day to the 26th day, which is a very brief period if compared with the period of the nutfa changing to alaqa.)

4.Izam (The Stage of bones).

(During the 6th week, the cartilaginous skeleton starts to spread in the body. Yet, we do not see the human image features except at the beginning of the 7th week, where the shape of the embryo takes the look of the skeleton. Transformation from the mudgha form to the beginning of the skeleton form occurs in a very short period of time at the end of the 6th week and the beginning of the 7th week. This stage is characterized with the appearance of the skeleton which gives the embryo the human image.)

5.The stage of muscles (clothing with flesh).

(This stage is characterized with muscles encircling and tightly surrounding the bones. With the completion of clothing the bones with lahm (muscles and flesh), the human image starts to be more clear, as human parts are appropriately connected. After completion of myogenesis (muscle formation), the embryo can start to move.

This stage, which starts at the end of the 7th week and ends at the end of the 8th week, is considered as the end of the stage of takhaloq (formation). Embryologists termed the end of the 8th week as the end of the embryology stage followed by the foetus stage which coincides with the Nash’ah (developing) stage).

6.The stage of Nash’ah (developing) and viability.

(By the end of the 8th week, a new stage starts where important processes occur. The rate of developing accelerates compared with the previous one. The embryo transforms into another creature, as the sizes of head, body and limbs start to be balanced and regular between the 9th and 12th week. At the 10th week, external genital organs appear, and the skeleton develops structure from soft cartilaginous to hard calcic bones at the 12th week. Limbs and fingers are distinguished at the same week. The gender of the embryo is manifest with the clear appearance of genitalia.

In this stage the organs and the systems become well prepared to function. The foetus is ready for life outside the womb starting from the 22nd week to the 26th week (i.e., after the completion of the 6th month of gestation), when the respiratory system is ready to function and the nervous system is able to adjust the temperature of foetus body.

The first sense to develop in a developing human embryo is hearing. The foetus can hear sounds after the 24th week. Subsequently, the sense of sight is developed and by the 28th week, the retina becomes sensitive to light.

In this stage, no new system or organs are formed, and the uterus provides food and suitable environment for the foetus to thrive until the stage of labour )

7.The stage of Labour.

(After the passing of 9 lunar months (38 weeks), the foetus completes growth in the uterus. It is time now to go out after the end of this specified period.

Labour, which ends with delivery, is comprised of 4 stages:

1- Stage of dilatation of cervix and contraction of uterus muscle. This stage takes about 7-12 hours and occurs as a result of several factors: mechanic and hormonal. A set of hormones is excreted to help facilitate the stage of labour.

2- Stage of delivering the foetus. This stage takes about 30-50 minutes, and starts after enough dilatation of cervix. As a result of consequent uterus contractions, foetus head starts to emerge first.

It is striking that the diameter of foetus head may exceed 12 cm., i.e., normally triple the diameter of vaginal canal. Having considered this fact, and the role of self hormonal factors, in addition to the expansion of pelvis ligatures and muscles, that all facilitate the delivery of the foetus,

3- Stage of placenta emergence and the formation of blood clot behind the placenta (Figure 19). This stage lasts about 15 minutes.

4- Stage of uterus contraction. This is to alleviate the bleeding after delivery process, and continues for about two hours.)

Those are all the seven stages and if you need the verses that address i can quote.

Wow, my brain is really kicking right now :D It just occurred to me to wonder, are we sure that the “safe place” is actually the womb? Since apparently not all the verses are to be considered as embryology, that opens us up to further interpretations:

1. God creates Adam – the clay bit.
2. Adam’s descendants are placed as sperm in his testicles – drop of fluid in a safe place.
3. Sexual intercourse – left out for some reason, perhaps because it wasn’t sufficiently holy.
4. Sperm attached in the womb – clinging form.
…etc.

For my support, I cite 7 – 172:

And (remember) when your Lord brought forth from the Children of Adam, from their backs (loins) their seed (offspring, descendants) and made them bear witness as to their own souls: Am I not your Lord? They said: “Yes”! We bear witness (We testify). Lest you should say on the Day of Resurrection: “Verily we were unaware of this.

We see clearly from this the idea that one’s descendants are already somehow present in the… *ahem*… back. This appears to be some variant of the concept of the homunculus.

Anyway, since this interpretation doesn’t conflict with the text and complies with other parts of the Qur’an, I think it’s a reasonable alternative interpretation. What do you think, kalid?

Those are all the seven stages and if you need the verses that address i can quote.

Okay, quote the verse that explains stage 7, because I don’t see it.

For extra credit, quote the bits that explain all the extra detail you’ve put in, such as precise timings, sub-stages and specific organ developments. Otherwise, this ends up being just another example of just how much you’re reading into the text.

Just for the hell of it, I decided to run a word count on your explanation of the seven stages and compare it to the word count of the original text. The Qur’an verses (minus the bit about the clay) comes to 57 words in English translation. Your essay on the seven stages has 752 words.

The Qur’an verses (minus the bit about the clay) comes to 57 words in English translation. Your essay on the seven stages has 752 words.

I would say this is conclusive evidence either Kalid’s deity is imaginary, or truly incompetent. There should be a one-to-one correspondence, or very close to it. Occam’s razor therefore says the verses are merely poetic imagery. And that Kalid is like all creobots in imagufacturing “evidence”, which is more like spewing diarrhea non-stop over everything.

Huh? You say the Quran accurately parallels the scientific stages of development, yet none of your seven stages correspond to anything of note in the modern understanding of embryology. Where’s gastrulation, for fuck’s sake? How can you even talk about triploblast embryology without even mentioning it? What about neurulation? Hey, notice the name of this blog? Where is the pharyngula stage — organogenesis, Hox gene expression, somitogenesis? Even Aristotle could write about the elaboration of extra-embryonic membranes at the earliest stages, but the Quran’s got nothin’.

I don’t think you’ve quite understood what I was saying. Let me ask you more directly: Is this text to be interpreted exclusively in an embryological context or not?

I don’t think you understood me either.

you said:

Let me ask you more directly: Is this text to be interpreted exclusively in an embryological context or not?

You didn’t read my previous comment:

I said:

3.As long as those Qurainc explanations concern human embryology after we agree this premise and after we put and tested those Quranic embryonic explanations on the available knowledge and facts about human embryonic development:

I agree with you that we have to interpret the Quranic text exclusively in an embryological context if and if only it explains and embryological context.

Here the term *Clay* is out of the embryological context because it refers as a poetic recall of the initial creation of Adam as expressed in the previously quoted (The Noble Quran, 11-18).

I’m saying that just because the Qur’an in one place uses clay to refer to the first creation of man, it doesn’t mean that all following references to clay necessarily has to refer to that one event.

How did you come to this conclusion?

Again you didn’t read my previous comments. here is what i said:

I gave you an evidence within the same text that it refers to the initial creation, so you also need to provide an evidence that contradicts this one or refers to your interpretation explicitly ( i said explicitly, because the first interpretation has an explicit reference).

I have already clarified that the clay in the verse refers to the initial creation of Adam and i supported this interpretation with an evidence within the same Quranic text. see (The Noble Quran, 11-18)

Please don’t repeat that assertion or interpretational possibility ( that clay may refer to the embryological context) unless you back it with some evidence within the Quranic text that could support your interpretation and contradict the interpretation that i gave you [that it refers to the initial creation(11-18)]

I’m claiming that the text we’re actually discussing is not clear that this event is what’s being referred to. It might be or it might not. Once again, the text doesn’t actually say. Once again, that’s your interpretation. One possible interpretation out of many.

What……… really? what do you mean by:

the text doesn’t actually say. Once again, that’s your interpretation. One possible interpretation out of many.

The text clearly refers to the INITIAL CREATION, please show me what evidence within the text that support an interpretation other then the initial creation?

Don’t just assert that :

One possible interpretation out of many

Don’t just repeat this statement without providing any evidence from the same text that contradict the initial creation reference.

Anyway why you don’t get this? (The text is really very explicit about this, and there is no any other verse that contradict with this initial reference)

Let me rephrase it again:

1.That part of the Quran text that deals with embryology must be addressed in an embryological context.(because it addresses human embryology)

2.The term *CLAY* is out of the embryological context because its just for a poetic recall.

3.The evidence that *CLAY* refers to Initial creation is the verse (The Noble Quran, 11-18).

4.If any other interpretation needs to be considered it must:

A.Contradict the first verse that explicitly referring *CLAY* to the Initial creation.

B.It must be found within the Quranic text and not from any other source.(as long as we are evaluating we must consider the context it is referring.)

So your alternative interpretation and/or any other possible interpretation must fit that above logical evaluation criteria:

Thank you. Now that that’s established,

You welcome. So what…

will you agree that it’s possible, just possible, for the comment about “clay” to be read in more than one way? Will you agree that the way you read it is not the only possible reading?

Yes i will agree if you back your alternative interpretation with supporting evidence within the same text.

Note: again i have provided an evidence that support my interpretation, and you need to come up the opposite contradiction in order to invalidate the first interpretation and take the second one (or any other possible interpretation).

Sure. I claim as my evidence the exact same verses you do.

E.g. how about this scenario: Man and woman copulate and sperm is injected. God takes over and turns the sperm into clay (since we already “know” that’s where people come from). The clay proceeds along the lines of embryological development.

In this way, the reference to clay is both a poetical call-back to the creation of Adam, as well as a practical description of the events that also demonstrate god’s direct involvement and blessing of humanity. It’s both embryology and mythology, in quite a beautiful (if factually wrong) combination.

Can you show me any verses that rule this out as an option? Doesn’t this perfectly align with the text as written and the supporting verses you’ve quoted? Isn’t this a possible interpretation of the text?

First, this scenario is inconsistent with the Quran, and 100% contradiction with it.

Your question:

Can you show me any verses that rule this out as an option? Doesn’t this perfectly align with the text as written and the supporting verses you’ve quoted? Isn’t this a possible interpretation of the text?

This is a pretty good question, actually you impressed me.

First, this scenario messes up the right chronology of the stages: read this verse:

O mankind! If ye have a doubt about the Recreation (consider) that We created you out of dust, then out of sperm, then out of a leech-like clot, then out of a chewed-like lump of flesh, formed and unformed, in order that We may manifest (Our power) to you; and We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term.” (22: 5) .

My emphasis see:

We created you out of clay, then out of sperm, then out of a leech-like clot, then out of a chewed-like lump of flesh

Do you see the chronology (although as i mentioned earlier the clay is referring to the initial creation of man and its here as a poetic recall) the chronology is like this:

1.Out of clay:

(Poetic recall)<as i mentioned earlier i am not just asserting that its a poetic recall but here i am referring the Quranic verse (The Noble Quran, 11-18).

2.Out of sperm:

(here not only sperm but a mingling fluid as this verse illustrates:

[( إِنَّا خَلَقْنَا الإِنسَانَ مِنْ نُطْفَةٍ أَمْشَاجٍ نَبْتَلِيهِ فَجَعَلْنَاهُ سَمِيعًا بَصِيرًا) (الإنسان:2)
“Verily We created man from a drop of a mingled fluid-drop (nutfa amshaj), in order to try him: so We gave him (the gifts), of hearing and sight.” (76:2).

3.Out of a leech-like thing.

4.Out of a chewed-like lump of flesh.

AND SO ON ……………

Here your alternative interpretation is not working because:

There is no single stage that takes the sperm or the mingling fluid as a first stage and then *CLAY* as a second stage.

you said:

Man and woman copulate and sperm is injected. God takes over and turns the sperm into clay (since we already “know” that’s where people come from). The clay proceeds along the lines of embryological development.

So can you show me where in the Quran sperm or the mingling fluid is first and *CLAY* is next?

Still yammering nonsense Kalid. You claim divine inspiration. Then very first thing you must do is prove that the divine actually exists. You won’t prove that with your lying and bullshitting about the verses. All you prove is your unfamiliarity with the science, and your lack of intellectual honesty and integrity.

Islam sez:
The embryo starts looking like a leech during the days 15 to 24!
Science says:
Why the fuck did you just skip over all of the crazy shit that happens after the zygote forms? What the fuck, prophet? Also, where does your book say anything about leech-like size or shape?

Islam sez: The lamp of flesh transformation happens from day 24 to 26!
Science says: Umm, nothing at all that dramatic is happening at this time. The neural tube closes, arm buds emerge, and some preliminary organs are starting up, I guess. But there is no rapid sheath of flesh happening here…

Islam sez: STAGE OF BONES. STAGE OF BONES. Week 6 and 7 STAGE OF BONES.
Science says: Okay….I’m just gonna give you the courtesy of assuming you just got confused and now you are just talking about a video game level…
I mean, I guess its limbs are more pronounced during this time…but….I mean, you are saying it has a full fledged skeleton now? Really? Are you high? Bone development doesn’t really rev up until week 10. Also, didn’t your verse say that the flesh turned into bone?

Islam sez: And then the muscles start to form around the bone and connect things together and the embryo can move.
Science says: Fine, whatever.

Islam says: At week 8 up to 12, the embryo is more balanced and regular.
Science says: The fetus has a head that is half of the size of its body…

Islam says: And now labor.
Science says: What insight. What prophecy. How could you possibly know about birthing children!? Truly you have divine knowledge that could only come from a god!

I went back to check the text again. I don’t know about translation and the grammar of Arabic, but in English, there’s an interesting detail:

We created man from an essence of clay, then We placed him as a drop of fluid in a safe place.

In English, the “him” clearly refers back to the earlier subject; the man. If the first instance is referring to the creation of Adam, doesn’t it follow that the rest of the text does as well? On the other hand, if the rest is describing the creation of each individual human, then the “man” earlier must also refer to that individual human.

Man I think your whole understanding of the subject is like a puzzle game and I am gathering and connecting the scattered pieces with the original quotations from Quran.

Anway, the answer is NOPE:

First, its because the first creation man from Clay is referring to Adam as i said earlier (The Noble Quran, 11-18).

Second. the other rest stages of creation concern only to other humans not Adam, because of:

1.That part of the text that says man is created (out of clay) is explicitly referred to Adam, as this verse shows (Quran, 11-18).

2.There is complete story (in the haddith) addressing the history of Adam’s creation and the step by step creation process, and that does not include any of the other stages rather then the different sub-stages within the clay stage so there is no distinction about this.

3.This verse that you have quoted is:

“O mankind! If ye have a doubt about the Recreation (consider) that We created you out of clay, then out of sperm, then out of a leech-like clot, then out of a chewed-like lump of flesh, formed and unformed, in order that We may manifest (Our power) to you; and We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term.” (22: 5)

After that we made the exception of Adam, the verse is addressing humanity in general not a specific human like Adam as you thought. (See the *Owmankind*)

So, here in this context only the clay is referred to Adam while the rest of the stages are for descent humans.

You might notice that only one of them say anything about mixed fluids. So, I can conclude that it’s most definitely possible to translate the text in a manner that doesn’t refer to mixing fluids at all. That throws this subject open again.

this is the exact verse that literally uses the term mingling fluid, also the term mingling fluid is not the same interpretation of the other term drop of fluid both terms are literally included in the text (for the Arabic meaning of the term drop of fluid see (Nutfa) and for the Arabic meaning of the term mingling fluid see (amshaj) I’m recommending you to search the distinction between those two terms.

They don’t have even a close meaning. See this verse:

“Verily We created man from a drop of a mingled fluid-drop (nutfa amshaj), in order to try him: so We gave him (the gifts), of hearing and sight.” (76:2).

You talk in circles but nothing has changed since your first post. Your book is flat wrong, wrong, wrong on all these points, and wrong in precisely the ways we would expect for a work of that time and place.

I mean, small kudos to Mohammed for even including details that match the science of his time, but evidence of divine inspirational it is not.

I swear to Allah that kalid is just copying and pasting his own responses. Like, every response it sounds like even the exact same wording. At least other repetitious trolls try to pretend that they aren’t just saying the same thing over and over again.

I see Kalid is not making his fallacious case, as his repetition of the same totally refuted points doesn’t prove his case, but proves ours that he has nothing but bullshit from ignorance. He still hasn’t or won’t (same difference at the end of the day) provided any evidence for the divine being giving the alleged inspiration for that bit of poetic imagery. A divine being would be more precise and less vague since it is Omni-whatever, and knows the science. It wouldn’t have it’s prophet get he words wrong.

This whole line of argument is identical to the racist ancient alien crap. No way could those ancient brown people have known about X and Y so it must have been aliens! Or some lost tribe of white explorers! Or, in this case, divine inspiration!

So ironic that kalid (making a possibly wrong assumption on his ethnicity here based on his ‘nym) making a set of arguments that basically boils down to claiming that his ancestors and the founders of his religion were basically primitive and ignorant fools.

As a general rule ancient peoples invariably knew more than we moderns know they did, for the simple reason that as time passes we forget the fact that they knew.

I see Kalid is not making his fallacious case, as his repetition of the same totally refuted points doesn’t prove his case, but proves ours that he has nothing but bullshit from ignorance. He still hasn’t or won’t (same difference at the end of the day) provided any evidence for the divine being giving the alleged inspiration for that bit of poetic imagery. A divine being would be more precise and less vague since it is Omni-whatever, and knows the science. It wouldn’t have it’s prophet get he words wrong.179

Here is how atheism’s very logic is fallacious inconsistent and internally contradictory:

I have had a debate several times on twitter with so many people who believe atheism as a their faith and religion.

Atheist: First someone asked me do you believe in a god or divinity?

Me: I said yes, I believe in Allah.

Atheist: do you have an evidence of the existence of your God?

Me: Everything in life, everything in the universe is a witness of God’s actions?

Atheist: How do you know that?

Me: Prophecies and science.

Atheist: But how?

Me: Prophecies tells me things that there is no way an unaided human mind could speculate.
Science explains to me the very mechanisms that God used to do his business.

Atheist: Well, can you provide an observable evidence of the actual existence of your God?

Me: Still our knowledge is limited, and our mechanisms to discover missing knowledge are constrained, but anyway its faith supported with evidence although not physical evidence but the evidence of his actions.

Me: But you atheist why you don’t believe in God?

Atheist: because we don’t have an empirical evidence to accept divinity.

Me: Ok, so everything you believe or hold as a fact and truth is based on observable or empirical evidences?

Atheist: Yes, I can only accept something as a fact or truth if I had the evidence.

Me: So, how could you justify your unbelief in god? Could you provide to me your evidence against God’s existence? (As long as you said I only rely on observable evidence)

Atheist: What……..? I justify my unbelief with the simple lack of evidence of your divinity?

Me: So, in your logic lack of evidence equates as evidence?

Atheist: Yes, lack of evidence = means evidence.

Me: O my god, what the hell is that, your logic is absolutely fallacious, don’t you see the logical fallacy here:
How could a negative simultaneously be a positive? I thought evidence is evidence and the lack of evidence would be the polar opposite?

Atheist: well, right that is a clear logical inconsistency let me rephrase my previous statement, I will cut my previous assertion that god does not exist because there is no evidence, let me say we cannot just prove whether god exists or not because the lack of evidence.

Me: Wow, I can see how your logic is fluctuating and oh, look its actually evolving in a very high speed, I am really lucky to see a process that could take millions of years to occur within few minutes.

Me: anyway so you say we just cannot prove it, so do you think that there is probability that it may exist but our constrained sense of knowledge and perception is limited?.

Atheist: Yes our knowledge is limited but we are gaining new discoveries everyday so we are acquiring it, I don’t think that there is a probability that something by the name of God could exist that is a delusion.

Me: But if you admit that our knowledge is limited and our horizon is bounded with empirical evidence how could you be so sure that God don’t exist and that believing in him is a delusion? Also remember you already admitted we cannot rule out that god don’t exist but we just don’t have evidence.

Atheist: No, you are deceiving me, let me go back to my original assertion God don’t exist because we don’t have empirical evidence, because if I agree with you about that God may or may not exist, then I am a believer in god even if I admit a probability 0.0001.

Me: wow, you are doing well, now everyone can see the inconsistency of your logic.

Atheist don’t f*cking care about that.

Me: Let’s test your logic in an illustrative analogy; let’s take the truth about the bacteria:

Bacteria was found on 19th century by the help of microscope, before 19th century no one could have the ability to prove empirically that there is a unicellular organism by the name of bacteria.

So, according to your logic before the 19th century bacteria didn’t existed because of the lack of evidence and anyone who would talk about such a thing would be delusional and superstition believer.

But when we finally found bacteria by the help of the microscope, suddenly the truth about the bacteria that once never existed suddenly comes in to existence.

What an inconsistent logic! What a delusion! What a mess! What a flawed faith!

Here the truth fluctuates in the logic of the atheist from non-existence to existence, but the truth in reality always existed but atheist narrow logic, his limited understanding and his fluctuating logic was hampering truth.

Because relying on evidence and neglecting the possibility and the probability of existence is a main part of the flawed structure of the faith , ( I used here the word faith for atheism because it exactly characterizes their believe in the non-existence of God without the evidence to prove his non-existance.

Atheist: I do not see any evidence for God or Allah. While it is possible that said deity exists, I see no reason to believe that the possibility of said being is sufficiently low that there is no point worrying about it, let alone arguing about it.

Bacteria existed prior to the 19th century (or even the 18th century, when van Leeuwenhoek observed them). Simply because we hadn’t observed them did not mean that they did not exist, because we could observe their actions (infections, diseases, etc).

Here is how atheism’s very logic is fallacious inconsistent and internally contradictory:

What internal problem? There is none, unless, like your bullshit, you imagufacture it, as you did above. It is so wrong it isn’t even wrong. Your deity doesn’t exist. Claims that does are ignored until you provide conclusive physical evidence. And you can’t, and you know that. You have the problem. We don’t.

Bacteria existed prior to the 19th century (or even the 18th century, when van Leeuwenhoek observed them). Simply because we hadn’t observed them did not mean that they did not exist, because we could observe their actions (infections, diseases, etc).

You made my day excellent!

Now I can empirically observe given the evidence of the above quoted comment how the honest undeluded human logic works.

See here:

Simply because we hadn’t observed them did not mean that they did not exist, because we could observe their actions (infections, diseases, etc).

This is exactly what I’m trying to say, given that our knowledge is limited and our mechanisms to observe evidence is constrained by human ignorance doesn’t make the existence of the truth a non-existence because it’s enough for the short term to observes the direct actions that are related to the truth and it’s consequences.

Oh, and Kalid, disproving a vague and moving goalposts you delusional fools do can’t be done. You need to specify the evidence to the point where if it isn’t there, your claims is dismissed as bullshit. Godbots are afraid to do that, as they lose every time. And that is why the null hypothesis is that deities don’t exist. It requires you, claiming they exist, to provide the solid evidence they do.
Now, where is your eternally burning bush or equivalent????

Now I can empirically observe given the evidence of the above quoted comment how the honest undeluded human logic works.

That isn’t evidence, but rather opinion. Your logic has holes in it the size of Montana. Starting with your imaginary deity, your fallacious and stupid attempt to pretend a piece of poetic imagery is anything but, and your inability to forward an argument.

Again fuckwit, what is required to prove you wrong? If you can’t/won’t answer that, you have no logic….

Me: Everything in life, everything in the universe is a witness of God’s actions

Atheist: That’s a cop out of a response. How do you know that?

Me: Prophecies and science.

Atheist: More non-answers huh?

Me: Prophecies tells me things that there is no way an unaided human mind could speculate.
Science explains to me the very mechanisms that God used to do his business.

Atheist: Oh my fucking Christ. Most prophecies really do predict the obvious. Other prophecies are vague and are just interpreted in hindsight to be something Profound. And that is to say nothing of failed prophecies. It is selection bias to the extreme! Can you provide an observable evidence of the actual existence of your God?

Me: Still our knowledge is limited, and our mechanisms to discover missing knowledge are constrained, but anyway its faith supported with evidence although not physical evidence but the evidence of his actions. But you atheist why you don’t believe in God?

Atheist: So you don’t have any evidence then? You do realize that “evidence of his actions” is question begging right? Like believing in phlogiston because you see fire. And I don’t believe because we don’t have an empirical evidence to accept divinity. Null hypothesis, burden of proof, etc.

Me: Ok, so everything you believe or hold as a fact and truth is based on observable or empirical evidences?

Atheist: Pretty much.

Me: So, how could you justify your unbelief in god? Could you provide to me your evidence against God’s existence? (As long as you said I only rely on observable evidence)

Atheist: What……..? Null hypotheis. Burden of proof. You can’t prove a negative. Look at every other unproven thing in existence. Do you assume that they are true by default until they are proven false? Believe in men on the moon and unicorns and interdimensional goblins?

Me: So, in your logic lack of evidence equates as evidence?

Atheist: Are you drunk?

Me: O my god, what the hell is that, your logic is absolutely fallacious, don’t you see the logical fallacy here:
How could a negative simultaneously be a positive? I thought evidence is evidence and the lack of evidence would be the polar opposite?

Atheist: ….is it smoking? It is something you are smoking right?

Me: Wow, I can see how your logic is fluctuating and oh, look its actually evolving in a very high speed, I am really lucky to see a process that could take millions of years to occur within few minutes. Anyway so you say we just cannot prove it, so do you think that there is probability that it may exist but our constrained sense of knowledge and perception is limited?.

Atheist: Yes our knowledge is limited but we are gaining new discoveries everyday so we are acquiring it. I think that there is a probability that something by the name of God could exist, but so could leprechauns, fairies, a dragon in my garage, or a teapot floating in space. What part of burden of proof don’t you understand? What part of believing something just because it isn’t strictly impossible makes sense you? Don’t you realize the special pleading involved in that mindset? Also, what was the point of saying “everything is evidence” and babbling about prophecy if you are basically going to argue that it doesn’t matter whether you have evidence anyway? What kind of bullshit is that?

Me: But if you admit that our knowledge is limited and our horizon is bounded with empirical evidence how could you be so sure that God don’t exist and that believing in him is a delusion? Also remember you already admitted we cannot rule out that god don’t exist but we just don’t have evidence.

Atheist: Why are you so sure that God does exist, since you admit that there is no evidence? Just because we cannot rule out god doesn’t mean you should believe in Him.

Me: wow, you are doing well, now everyone can see the inconsistency of your logic.

Atheist: It’s projection all the way down with you, huh?

Me: Let’s test your logic in an illustrative analogy; let’s take the truth about the bacteria:

Bacteria was found on 19th century by the help of microscope, before 19th century no one could have the ability to prove empirically that there is a unicellular organism by the name of bacteria.

So, according to your logic before the 19th century bacteria didn’t existed because of the lack of evidence and anyone who would talk about such a thing would be delusional and superstition believer.

But when we finally found bacteria by the help of the microscope, suddenly the truth about the bacteria that once never existed suddenly comes in to existence.

What an inconsistent logic! What a delusion! What a mess! What a flawed faith!

Here the truth fluctuates in the logic of the atheist from non-existence to existence, but the truth in reality always existed but atheist narrow logic, his limited understanding and his fluctuating logic was hampering truth.

Atheist: Yes, and? If someone went along before bacteria was proven to exist and was babbling about how they were 100% certain that bacteria existed, and they had no evidence or logical reason for believing so, and basically just yelled at people about how they just had a really good gut feeling and about the value of Faith…well that person was a really shitty communicator and was right for all the wrong reasons. Method matters. Logic and facts matter. Just because someone arrived at the right answer doesn’t mean much if the way they reached that answer was utterly fucking stupid. See also: prophecy, Quran “embryology”.

Me: Because relying on evidence and neglecting the possibility and the probability of existence is a main part of the flawed structure of the faith , ( I used here the word faith for atheism because it exactly characterizes their believe in the non-existence of God without the evidence to prove his non-existance.

Atheist: And more projection. Yeah, go pat yourself on the back and pretend you won, fucking clueless git.

. You are so wrong by your lies, bullshit, and strawmen atheists and theological assinitiy, that your whole argument doesn’t make sense. You can’t/won’t see that, but everybody else does. You are True Believer™, who believes for the sake of believing, and not because of evidence.

Examples: The following are so wrong they aren’t even wrong:
1) your imaginary deity exists without conclusive physical evidence
2) Your bit of poetic imagery is anything other than that since your deity doesn’t exist.
You want to be wrong? Tell us what you make you acknowledge your whole argument is WRONG? If you can’t/won’t, you are so wrong you aren’t even wrong.

kalid
From the Wikipedia article linked by anteprepro that you didn’t read.

The phrase not even wrong describes any argument that purports to be scientific but fails at some fundamental level, usually in that it contains a terminal logical fallacy or it cannot be falsified by experiment (i.e. tested with the possibility of being rejected), or cannot be used to make predictions about the natural world.

The contradiction and the logical inconsistency proceeds little bit further.

Yep, yours can’t get much further though. You are so wrong you aren’t even wrong….

Look if I am not even wrong I must be right or at least NOT EVEN WRONG, within this logic I cannot be an idiot and at the same moment NOT EVEN WRONG.

No, you are the idjit. You are so far wrong, you are being laughed at as not even in the game. You are telling Einstein what is wrong with relativity, and every one of your arguments are non-sequiturs. That is how wrong you are…..

Wow, my brain is really kicking right now :D It just occurred to me to wonder, are we sure that the “safe place” is actually the womb? Since apparently not all the verses are to be considered as embryology, that opens us up to further interpretations:

What…..? why do you repeat this sentence all the time:?

You said:

since apparently not all the verses are to be considered as embryology, that opens us up to further interpretations

Nope: it opens NO further interpretation:

I said a thousand time:

I agree with you that we have to interpret the Quranic text exclusively in an embryological context if and if only it explains and embryonic development.

Here the term *Clay* is out of the embryological context because it refers as a poetic recall of the initial creation of Adam as expressed in the previously quoted (The Noble Quran, 11-18).

Which part of those two paragraphs you don’t understand?

Also i said and emphasized: (about any relative or possible interpretation).

I gave you an evidence within the same text that it refers to the initial creation, so you also need to provide an evidence that contradicts this one or refers to your interpretation explicitly ( i said explicitly, because the first interpretation has an explicit reference).

And which part of this paragraph you didn’t understand?

You said:

that opens us up to further interpretations:

1. God creates Adam – the clay bit.

Right, God creates Adam out of Clay (the initial creation of Adam).

This verse illustrates explicitly that the *Clay* creation was only the initial creation, not part of the embryonic development read this verse:

“He It is Who created all things in the best way and began the creation of man from clay, and made his progeny from an extract of despised fluid (Sulalah) ” (32: 7-8)

My emphasis :

began the creation of man from clay, and made his progeny from an extract of despised fluid.

What is wrong with you? can’t you see this?

You said:

2. Adam’s descendants are placed as sperm in his testicles – drop of fluid in a safe place.

O.k, Yes but the remember the Arabic word *amshaj* in English (Mingling), so the drop is not only a drop but its f*cking mingling, that means more then one fluid.

Here is the verse :

( إِنَّا خَلَقْنَا الإِنسَانَ مِنْ نُطْفَةٍ أَمْشَاجٍ نَبْتَلِيهِ فَجَعَلْنَاهُ سَمِيعًا بَصِيرًا) (الإنسان:2)
“Verily We created man from a drop of a mingled fluid-drop (nutfa amshaj), in order to try him: so We gave him (the gifts), of hearing and sight.” (76:2).

Search the Arabic word * أَمْشَاجٍ* IT MEANS MIXTURE OR COMPOSITION OF MORE THEN ONE THING.

Your interpretation to refer the *safe place* to the testicles is not working, because the Quran refers the save place as the place where *Alaqa/ the leech-like* and the *Mudgha/ the lamp of flesh* are resting and developing from stage to stage.

See here:

“Verily We created man of a fluid-drop (nutfa), mingling (amshaj) , in order to try him: so We gave him (the gifts of) hearing and sight.” (76:2).

“O mankind! If ye have a doubt about the Recreation (consider) that We created you out of clay, then out of sperm, then out of a leech-like clot, then out of a chewed-like lump of flesh, formed and unformed, in order that We may manifest (Our power) to you; and We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term.” (22: 5) .

My emphasis:

and We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term.

Again i don’t know why you can’t see these burden of Quranic reference, see the drop is from alaqa to mudgha and so on, but the process is occurring in the womb literally.

So, your interpretation to refer the safe place to the testicles is baseless.

You said:

3. Sexual intercourse – left out for some reason, perhaps because it wasn’t sufficiently holy.

Here I just can’t understand what are you talking about!

See this verse:

O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted.(49:13)

You said:

left out for some reason, perhaps because it wasn’t sufficiently holy

Quran says:

indeed We have created you from male and female.

Here again your interpretation that Quran didn’t mentioned the sexual intercourse is refuted and no longer valid.

You said:

Sperm attached in the womb – clinging form.

Nope: again your interpretation is out of the original text, Not only a pure sperm but the *mingling fluid*.

Quran says:

a fluid-drop (nutfa), mingling (amshaj)

You said:

We see clearly from this the idea that one’s descendants are already somehow present in the… *ahem*… back. This appears to be some variant of the concept of the homunculus.

Anyway, since this interpretation doesn’t conflict with the text and complies with other parts of the Qur’an, I think it’s a reasonable alternative interpretation. What do you think, kalid?

I think its wrong interpretation because of this:

First, Quran refutes explicitly the concept of the *homunculus* when its says:

Quran explains several stages of embryonic development, the drop of the mingling fluid, the leech-like the lamp of flesh…….these stages are invalidating the interpretation of the *homunculus* because a leech-like and a lamp of flesh can’t be a homunculus.

Second, since the idea of the homunculus is invalidated the idea of the descents that are in the back of Adam could only represent the genetic heredity.

Another interesting point here is the reference of the descendency only to Adam:

The only interpretation that is possible relative to the context here is that it refers to the male sex chromosomes, as we know the male caries X-Y sex chromosome while the female is X-X so as long as the male caries both X and Y chromosomes, its the male who determines the sex of the foetus.

Still no evidence for your imaginary diety, required if you plan on using “divine revelation”.

About My God ( also your God, just you are denying him), my logic works like this:

I am a believer in God, because when i reason about the origin of life in earth, about the universe about matter about energy, my logic ask me one question:

Something astonishing has happened in the universe. There has arisen a thing called life—flamboyant, rambunctious, gregarious form of matter, qualitatively different from rocks, gas, and dust, yet made of the same stuff, the same humdrum elements lying around everywhere.

There may be no scientific mystery so tantalizing at the brink of the new millennium and yet so resistant to an answer. Extraterrestrial life represents an enormous gap in our knowledge of nature. With instruments such as the Hubble Space Telescope, scientists have discovered a bewildering amount of cosmic turf, and yet they still know of only a single inhabited world.

Even if we convince ourselves that there must be life out there, we confront a second problem, which is that we don’t know anything about that life. We don’t know how truly alien it is. We don’t know if it’s built on a foundation of carbon atoms. We don’t know if it requires a liquid-water medium, if it swims or flies or burrows.

Ben Zuckerman, an astronomer at UCLA, thinks that we may as well be alone in this galaxy if not in the universe.

1.If the origin of life was just a matter of chance, why this chance chose only in earth to bring life? i mean probability and chance works as a random, but in a massive universe and so many galaxies yet life prefers only earth which so small relative to the universe?.

what i mean is if it was all about random chance there must be plenty of life in the universe at least different degrees, but the reality is the polar opposite its that life on earth is very sophisticated very developed, look the smallest organism its design is so amazing, while outside earth the only kind of life you may expect is a bacteria that feeds on acid or something like that, but not a highly sophisticate life such us the one on earth.

Then suddenly while i’m thinking about the answer i’m clearly observing God’s traces, his omnipotence and his endowment that he a gave Adam which was Honor, privilege, liberty/responsibility, choice and intellect.

The story of when god created and privileged Adam is here:

“Remember when your Lord said to the angels: ‘Verily, I am going to place mankind generations after generations on earth.’ They said: ‘Will You place therein those who will make mischief therein and shed blood, while we glorify You with praises and thanks (exalted be You above all that they associate with You as partners) and sanctify You?’ Allah said: ‘I know that which you do not know.’

Allah taught Adam all the names of everything, then He showed them to the angels and said: ‘Tell Me the names of these if you are truthful.’ They (angels) said: ‘Glory be to You, we have no knowledge except what You have taught us. Verily, it is You, the All-Knower, the All-Wise.’

He said: ‘O Adam! Inform them of their names,’ and when he had informed them of their names, He said: ‘Did I not tell you that I know the unseen in the heavens and the earth, and I know what you reveal and what you have been hiding?’

Remember when We said to the angels: ‘Prostrate yourself before Adam.’ They prostrated except Iblis, he refused and was proud and was one of the disbelievers (disobedient to Allah).

We said: ‘O Adam! Dwell you and your wife in the Paradise and both of you freely with pleasure and delight of things therein as wherever you will but come not near this tree or you both will be of the dhalimin (wrongdoers).’

Then the Satan made them slip therefrom (the Paradise), and got them out from that in which they were. We said: ‘Get you down all with enmity between yourselves. On earth will be a dwelling place for you and an enjoyment for a time.’

Then Adam received from his Lord Words. His Lord pardoned him (accepted his repentance). Verily He is the One Who forgives (accepts repentance), the most Merciful. We said: ‘Get down all of you from this place (the Paradise), then whenever there comes to you Guidance from Me, and whoever follows My Guidance there shall be no fear on them, nor shall they grieve. But those who disbelieve and belie Our ayah (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, and signs and revelations, etc) such are the dwellers of the Fire, they shall Abide therein forever.’ ” [Al-Qur’an 2:30-39]

1.If the origin of life was just a matter of chance, why this chance chose only in earth to bring life? i mean probability and chance works as a random, but in a massive universe and so many galaxies yet life prefers only earth which so small relative to the universe?.

Clearly probability and the weak anthropic principle are also things you don’t understand.

while outside earth the only kind of life you may expect is a bacteria that feeds on acid or something like that, but not a highly sophisticate life such us the one on earth.

You don’t know that. You can’t know that. You’re layering supposition upon supposition. And even if Earth life is unique, that still wouldn’t prove any gods. Your conclusions do not follow from your premises.

And because I’ve been thinking of the homunculus ever since kalid first mentioned “sperm to baby” (which would be the expected patriarchal thinking):

Homunculus means: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homunculus]

creation of a miniature, fully formed human. The concept has roots in preformationism as well as earlier folklore and alchemic traditions.

So, there is nowhere in the Quran which referes the sperm or the leech-like, or the lamp of flesh stages as Homunculus. look, its so absurd its the logic of *Preformationism* which is scientifically invalid.

Something astonishing has happened in the universe. There has arisen a thing called life—flamboyant, rambunctious, gregarious form of matter, qualitatively different from rocks, gas, and dust, yet made of the same stuff, the same humdrum elements lying around everywhere.

There may be no scientific mystery so tantalizing at the brink of the new millennium and yet so resistant to an answer

I love it when creationists are so stupid as to say that life proves God. Evolution explains life just fine, fuckwit. It is not a scientific mystery. It is not a gap that you cram your God into anymore. Just because you deny and ignore does not mean that suddenly everyone else must follow suit.

And this is the fucker who pretends that he is the master of logic around here! Don’t make me fucking laugh.

If the origin of life was just a matter of chance, why this chance chose only in earth to bring life? i mean probability and chance works as a random, but in a massive universe and so many galaxies yet life prefers only earth which so small relative to the universe?.

what i mean is if it was all about random chance there must be plenty of life in the universe at least different degrees,

Again, master and expert of all things, you are aware that we haven’t actually explored much of our own SOLAR SYSTEM, let alone our galaxy, let alone the universe, right?

So, there is nowhere in the Quran which referes the sperm or the leech-like, or the lamp of flesh stages as Homunculus. look, its so absurd its the logic of *Preformationism* which is scientifically invalid.

Humans made out of clay and flesh turning into bone aren’t scientifically valid either, genius.

Anything you say here fuckwit is public and anybody and everybody can and will comment. You don’t have private conversations. You show public stupidity, and it will be called out for what it is. You babble, and not brightly. Time for you to mature your juvenile thinking that anybody is interested in your gafflebabble.

So, there is nowhere in the Quran which referes the sperm or the leech-like, or the lamp of flesh stages as Homunculus. look, its so absurd its the logic of *Preformationism* which is scientifically invalid.You don’t determine what is and isn’t scientifically valid. Real scientists do that. Your whole argument lacks scientific validity. Nothing but gafflebabble.

chigau: I would say so. Kaled came in a week after the OP, posting the same shit that PZ was describing originally, and has continued to basically repeat the same barely literate shit for three days. Inanity, to the extreme.

I was visiting my mother last night, so I couldn’t be here. I see that a lot has happened in the meantime. I’ve tried to condense it all down and just hit the main points, but it’s still a long one. Brace yourselves.

I agree with you that we have to interpret the Quranic text exclusively in an embryological context if and if only it explains and embryonic development.

But the bits that you insist don’t explain embryology fit perfectly fine into an embryological interpretation. The decision to interpret the “clay” bit outside an embryological context is an interpretative decision. The text doesn’t explicitly say, one way or the other. It just isn’t there.

Which part of those two paragraphs you don’t understand?

I understand them fine. I just don’t agree with them. The argument you make is a fine argument for the plausibility of your interpretation, but it in no way excludes other possibilities. As far as I’m concerned, it’s still very much an open question.

The Qur’an refers to Adam’s creation as being from clay. The text we’re discussing talks of man being created from clay. I’m perfectly happy to grant that it’s plausible to draw a connection between these two things.

However, the text doesn’t explicitly make that connection. That’s just a matter of fact: It doesn’t. Nor does it make it clear how that connection is supposed to work.

E.g. one could easily argue that since the first man is created from clay, the same is true of his descendants. So, it refers to Adam, only through the embryological precedent; the entire text would still be describing the embryology of the individual.

So, when you are saying that the bit about clay isn’t part of the embryology, thats an interpretation. The text simply doesn’t say that this is the case. The text could easily have said “I created Adam, your forefather, from clay and then created each of you from a drop of fluid…”

That would be an explicit reference (you might want to look up that word, btw). It could have said that, but it doesn’t. Despite your protestations, it just doesn’t.

***

My second point about the “safe place” goes in the other direction. If we accept that the bit about clay isn’t embryology, how do we know that the “safe place” is embryology? Maybe the transition into embryology only occurs after that point.

You whine about the “mingling fluids”, but have you considered that semen itself is a mingled fluid? It contains fluids from several glands. Ergo, the “mingled fluid” bit cannot be used to argue that this must refer to something occurring in the womb. It could refer to the composition of semen itself.

Yeah, I know. You’re going to throw a fit about be pointing out another interpretation aren’t you? Well, tough. Fact is that many interpretations are possible and completely in accord with the text. It’s only your bias that makes it impossible for you to admit it.

***

Regarding the translational issue, I suggest you go argue with the scholars that produced the translations I quoted. I don’t read Arabic, so I’m forced to rely on translations. Your argument is with them, not with me.

I simply note the fact that several scholarly translations of the Qur’an make no mention of “mingling fluids” at all. If you don’t like that fact, take it up with them.

Also, a brief note about intercourse: I wasn’t saying that the Qur’an, as a whole, doesn’t mention intercourse. I pointed to the fact that the text in question doesn’t mention it. Just like it doesn’t mention the actual birth, even thought you tried to sneak that into your seven stages.

Almost forgot about the homunculus bit. It’s not really central to what I was talking about, but I don’t see that the text rules it out. A small person in the fetal position and attached to the side of the womb might easily resemble a leech. Again, since the text isn’t very precise, we can’t rule it out on those grounds.

The only interpretation that is possible relative to the context here is that it refers to the male sex chromosomes,

Now you’re just being silly. When’s the last time you’ve seen a chromosome stand up and proclaim its faith in Allah? No, the verse clearly refers to actual, full-grown human beings; beings with ability to reason and speak.
After all, if it refers to chromosomes, what’s the point of the follow-up? God is asking for the people to testify, so that they can’t claim ignorance later. That makes no sense if it’s only the chromosomes testifying.

Honestly, I think you’re reaching even more than usual on this one. The text obviously refers to human beings; each one of us, actually; pulled fully formed from Adam’s body. It’s very clear and direct on this. If that’s not reminiscent of a homunculus, I don’t know what would be.

As for them coming from his back, that’s a common ancient misconception. Exactly the kind of thing we’d expect if Muhammad was writing from his own flawed understanding, rather than divine inspiration. How about that.

On a more general point:
I can’t help but notice that the arguments you make actually presuppose that the Qur’an is perfect. See, without that assumption, you can’t exclude the possibility that various parts of the Qur’an simply contradict each other.

So, if we leave the question of the unity of the Qur’an up in the air, you can’t actually argue that the homunculus model is disproved by another verse saying something else. It could simply be a contradiction.
That’s… wait for it… another possible interpretation.

***

Finally, the whole issue here is that you’re engaged in a massive pile of motivated reasoning. You’ve already decide that the Qur’an is right about everything. Therefore, you can’t even for a moment entertain the idea that it might be wrong. E.g. the clay bit is obviously wrong, so you conclude that it couldn’t possibly be referring to embryology.

This means that you repeatedly refuse to consider perfectly viable interpretations. The moment you see that an interpretation doesn’t fit the science, it must be excluded, no matter how well it fits the text.
E.g. in #208 you explicitly reject the idea of the homunculus, in part because it’s scientifically invalid. But you can’t just assume that the Qur’an fits with science, since that the very thing under discussion. That would be begging the question.

That’s not honest. Your faith is blinding you. It would be so bad if at least you were willing to say that it’s just your personal view, but you can’t leave it at that. You have to pretend that it’s the one and only objective view and that’s where you drive over the cliff.

No matter how you scream and shout, holler and howl, the simple fact is that the text is quite vague, lacking in details, and can support a whole host of possible readings. You can at most argue about probabilities, but you’ll never get certainty on this matter; the text just isn’t clear enough for it.

Since the claim of divine inspiration is quite an extravagant one, it would require very clear evidence. The fact that the text, with suitable twisting, adding and excluding, can be made to fit with modern science is nothing close to the kind of evidence you’ll need to convince anyone else.

If you really want to prove to us that your god exists, I think you’re wasting your time with this one. It’s like hoping that if you just fertilize a rosebush enough, eventually it’ll grow to the moon. It’ll never happen. It just isn’t possible from that starting point.

… and even if Earth life is unique, that still wouldn’t prove any gods. Your conclusions do not follow from your premises.

Sure it wouldn’t prove several gods BUT ONE OMNIPOTENT GOD.

It proves his actions, his traces and his impressive design.

God told us through the revelation that humanity is so special, honored to be existed, life on earth is so unique to the point that any other sophisticated life outside earth is quite impossible.

The level of sophistication of the life in our planet is so amazing so much so that the explanation of the scientific laws and micro-mechanisms that brought life are not sufficient evidence that the origin of life is about a matter of pure chance.

Why chance preferred only earth?

This is a big question.

Another big question is why the universe is expanding, while the astronomical calculations predict that the universe is shrinking based on the same mathematics used to solve the big bang equation.?

For thousands of years, astronomers wrestled with basic questions concerning the universe. Until the early 1920’s, it was believed that the universe had always been in existence; also, that the size of the universe was fixed and not changing. However, in 1912, the American astronomer, Vesto Slipher, made a discovery that would soon change astronomers’ beliefs about the universe. Slipher, noticed that the galaxies were moving away from earth at huge velocities. These observations provided the first evidence supporting the expanding-universe theory.

Astronomers say the universe is expanding due to an unknown substance which is called (the black matter)
they don’t even understand the nature of this substance but they say it can only be known through the gravity.

Here, you know what? its not only expanding its accelerating and at some point the result would be that everything will disintegrated even the electrons that are orbiting around the nucleus (protons and the neutrons) in the atom will disintegrate.

In 1916, Albert Einstein formulated his General Theory of Relativity that indicated that the universe must be either expanding or contracting. Confirmation of the expanding-universe theory finally came in 1929 in the hands of the well known American astronomer Edwin Hubble.

Yet, astonishingly well before telescopes were even invented and well before Hubble published his Law, Prophet Muhammad used to recite a verse of the Quran to his companions that ultimately stated that the universe is expanding.

This is more so considering that, like many people in his time, Prophet Muhammad happened to be illiterate and simply could not have been aware of such facts by himself. Could it be that he had truly received divine revelation from the Creator and Originator of the universe?

Here do you know what Quran says:

And it is We Who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Qur’an, 51:47)

What i mean is this is quit undeniable this God, he really exist, otherwise how could a goat herder on the heart of the Arabian desert could speculate such things while in that time the existing and mainstream knowledge is so primitive.

Also here Quran says:

“Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, then We separated them, and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?” (Quran 21:30)

OH…..MY……GOD

What………..?

Here everything is clear , Quran is referring the big bang, at this point I’m speechless, may logic cannot resist anymore to believe that there is no evidence that god exists.

It proves nothing. There is no design. All you have is question begging. Pareidolia. Post hoc rationalizations. You know how logic works, right? Modus ponens? IF X, then Y must happen. X is true, ergo Y must be true. You know how logic works, right? Affirming the consequent? IF X, then Y must happen, Y happened, therefore X is true. You are doing the second, not the first. You are inferring the cause, badly, from the effect, without examining alternative explanations. There is a reason why that is a logical fallacy.

The level of sophistication of the life in our planet is so amazing so much so that the explanation of the scientific laws and micro-mechanisms that brought life are not sufficient evidence that the origin of life is about a matter of pure chance.

No, it is quite sufficient. You are just ignorant, creationist fuckwit who denies scientific principles in order to justify belief in your ridiculous holy texts.

Another big question is why the universe is expanding, while the astronomical calculations predict that the universe is shrinking based on the same mathematics used to solve the big bang equation.?

lolwut?

Yet, astonishingly well before telescopes were even invented and well before Hubble published his Law, Prophet Muhammad used to recite a verse of the Quran to his companions that ultimately stated that the universe is expanding.

Oh fucking Mohammed on a dildo pogo stick, not more bad Quranic “science”…

This is more so considering that, like many people in his time, Prophet Muhammad happened to be illiterate and simply could not have been aware of such facts by himself.

You are a modern day Momo, ain’t ya?

What i mean is this is quit undeniable this God, he really exist, otherwise how could a goat herder on the heart of the Arabian desert could speculate such things while in that time the existing and mainstream knowledge is so primitive.

I assume using your logic that you also worship Nostradamus and horoscope writers?

“Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, then We separated them, and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?” (Quran 21:30)….

Here everything is clear , Quran is referring the big bang,

What the fuck are you on about? What the fuck are you smoking? Separating heavens and the earth IS NOTHING LIKE THE BIG BANG. The “earth” was not a thing joined to the Heavens during the Big Bang. Fuck, the Pre-Big Bang singularity would be described as a Giant Sun or Giant Star, not like Heaven + Earth. And earth was such a small fraction of it. And earth wasn’t even made of the materials we associate with “earth” (heavy elements) until AFTER the Big Bang.

Seriously, ignorance and blatantly motivated reasoning. You are the only one who doesn’t see it.

Are you by any chance referring to Muhammad, the husband of a wealthy woman, living in Mecca, a major center of commerce, with plenty of access to learned people?

Yeah, every time I’ve had to endure a conversation with these fanatical Muslim creationists, that’s their strategy. Mohammed was really, really stupid and ignorant, therefore God. It’s rank anti-intellectualism — their prophet has to be an idiot so that his revelations are necessarily divine.

Quite presuming your deity exists. It doesn’t, and never did except as delusion in your mind. Presuppositional arguments for dieties are to tiresome, and so not even wrong. When you presume in your axioms the conclusion, all you have is bullshit arguments where you pretend your answer isn’t there until you miraculously reveal it. The height of intellectual dishonesty.
Presume your deity doesn’t exist. Then, you provide the conclusive physical evidence from someplace other than your holy book. Otherwise you have the fallacy of circular reasoning. Holy book prove god which proves the holy book, round and round in circles.

Huh. Argument from dumb prophet seems like just another flavor of god of the gaps. Except instead of relying on a modern day gap in scientific knowledge, they get to rely on the far more convenient and difficult to disprove argument that there was gap in that knowledge during The Era of The Dumb Prophet.

Muhammad was uneducated in his childhood, but got access to money and learning later. He had means, motive and opportunity. There’s no reason whatsoever to suppose that he didn’t make use of it to gather up as much knowledge as he could. The very fact that the Qur’an mentions these subjects indicates that Muhammad had an interest in learning. As a result, he got some good education, but it was unstructured, with a lot of blind spots, where his childhood ignorance showed through.

This fit perfectly with what we see in the Qur’an: Verses that reflect something close to the knowledge of his day, perhaps distorted or simplified, occasionally mixed with rank superstition. Precisely what you’d expect from someone with Muhammad’s background.

About My God ( also your God, just you are denying him), my logic works like this:

I am a believer in God, because when i reason about the origin of life in earth, about the universe about matter about energy, my logic ask me one question:

Something astonishing has happened in the universe. There has arisen a thing called life—flamboyant, rambunctious, gregarious form of matter, qualitatively different from rocks, gas, and dust, yet made of the same stuff, the same humdrum elements lying around everywhere.

There may be no scientific mystery so tantalizing at the brink of the new millennium and yet so resistant to an answer. Extraterrestrial life represents an enormous gap in our knowledge of nature. With instruments such as the Hubble Space Telescope, scientists have discovered a bewildering amount of cosmic turf, and yet they still know of only a single inhabited world.

Even if we convince ourselves that there must be life out there, we confront a second problem, which is that we don’t know anything about that life. We don’t know how truly alien it is. We don’t know if it’s built on a foundation of carbon atoms. We don’t know if it requires a liquid-water medium, if it swims or flies or burrows.

Ben Zuckerman, an astronomer at UCLA, thinks that we may as well be alone in this galaxy if not in the universe.

The first two sections (that I put in italics) are assertions that *your* logic “works like this” and “ask[s] me one question.” Why, then, is all the rest that I’ve quoted from the January 2000 National Geographic magazine article “Life Beyond Earth” by Joel Achenbach–the first hit I got when I googled the phrase “bewildering amount of cosmic turf”? And it’s an article which (by the by and of course) does not go anywhere near a supernatural explanation of life. It also answers your single yet numbered question.

No one knows when—or if—one of these investigations might make a breakthrough. There’s a fair bit of boosterism surrounding the entire field [exobiology], but I’d bet the breakthrough is many years, if not decades, away. The simple truth: Extraterrestrial life, by definition, is not conveniently located.

But there are other truths that sustain the search for alien organisms. One is that, roughly speaking, the universe looks habitable. Another is that life radiates information about itself—that, if nothing else, it usually leaves a residue, an imprint, an echo. If the universe contains an abundance of life, that life is not likely to remain forever in the realm of the unknown.

If you’re going to blockquote your holy book to show that those thoughts are not your own, do Joel Achenbach (and us) the same favor–especially since you’ve cherry-picked Achenbach’s work.

Thanks, though, for this instance of plagiarism. It led me to information about Penny Boston’s work and gave me a grin over “snotties” and “phlegm balls.”

Drat. I was so chuffed to have done the double blockquote part right at the beginning of the post that I forgot to end the second blockquote. I have to take the blame for stuff at the bottom beginning “If you’re going to blockquote…”

Then, kalid, (sorry for misspelling your nym the first time) in comment #216, you’re plagiarizing The Deen Show. One again, I found it as the first Google hit with the sentence “However, in 1912, the American astronomer, Vesto Slipher, made a discovery that would soon change astronomers’ beliefs about the universe.”

Yeah, every time I’ve had to endure a conversation with these fanatical Muslim creationists, that’s their strategy. Mohammed was really, really stupid and ignorant, therefore God. It’s rank anti-intellectualism — their prophet has to be an idiot so that his revelations are necessarily divine.

PZ again I’m not surprised!

This is your way of debate, everytime you try to respond any of my comments you start your argument with some pretty nasty language, I don’t know what annoys you, I’m not good in psychology or the emotional intelligence so I don’t read minds.

First, no one have said Mohamed was ignorant, here you do quite well in making things up, anyway that’s up to you.

Second, as long as you can’t provide evidence of your Faithfull belief system you’re that God don’t exist more fanatic then any other Muslim or Christian.

Third, Mohamed was never been a god, he was just a normal human being whose chosen by God he got the revelation from god via through Gebrial.

Fourth, you need to stop all these emotional comments and argue like a real intellectual, I f**king know that you are an intellectual but unfortunatly something is upseting your whole logic.

Fifith, Mohamed got knowledge from the desert and speculated human embryology and the big bang theory, then what about Jesus Christ? What about Moses the Jew prophet what about Abraham, all are quite similar except little differences ?

If they were all wrong how?

Please don’t repeat the nonsense of saying * Not even wrong not even right* because that is a logical fallacy.

You implied it. After all, if Muhammad was not ignorant, then your original question makes no sense. In that case, he could speak about these things because he knew about them; case closed.

I’ve even explained how he could come to know them without any divine intervention, so that’s not an issue either.

Second, as long as you can’t provide evidence of your Faithfull belief system you’re that God don’t exist more fanatic then any other Muslim or Christian.

Ockham’s razor demands that additional hypotheses be justified by evidence. The default conclusion is that god does not exist; that’s the starting point. until you prove otherwise, that’s what we’ll stick to.

The burden of proof is on you, not us.

Fifith, Mohamed got knowledge from the desert and speculated human embryology and the big bang theory…

Well, presumably, he got the knowledge during the fifteen years he had to prepare for it. He was married at 25, gaining access to the money that would allow him to pursue learning. He didn’t get his supposed revelations until 40.

I think we can all agree that fifteen years is quite enough time for someone to pick up the few disjointed piece of pseudo-facts that the Qur’an contains.

Please don’t repeat the nonsense of saying * Not even wrong not even right* because that is a logical fallacy.

Which one?

The “not even wrong” idea is that some things are so bizarre or vague that they don’t even congeal into a testable statement. For example, if I assert that my old therefore won’t green tomorrow’s insolvent, is that true or false?

To check the validity of a statement, first you have to be able to translate it into something clear, unequivocal and testable. Then you can discuss whether it’s right or wrong (or, third option; undeterminable*). If the statement is sufficiently muddled, you never reach the second stage.

The important point is this: Just because something isn’t clearly wrong, doesn’t mean it’s right. If the reason it isn’t wrong is that it never reaches the point of judgment, that’s a much bigger flaw than simply being wrong. That’s being not even wrong.

* This third option is very important (and one that you also seem to have problems with). Some statements can’t be clearly determined to be right or wrong. Maybe information is lacking or the date is ambivalent. In that case, you don’t get to assert it’s right just because it hasn’t been disproven. The proper response is to suspend judgment until you get more information.

You know what baffles me? That people like kalid, who are demonstrably and ridiculously incompetent, either can’t or won’t ever think to themselves “Hey, according to my own ideology, there are souls on the line here. People could be won over to my belief system and be spared eternal damnation if a good case is made for my religion. They could be permanently turned off of from my faith, conversely, if I argue like a god-damned idiot. Maybe I should get someone who is actually competent at arguing for my religion of choice in here, rather than thrashing around like an idiot and thus indirectly having metaphysical blood on my hands?”

They really don’t think the stakes are that high. Or they do, only insofar as it makes them feel more self-important and pompous. But they will never, ever, both notice the stakes involved and use that as a reason to avoid putting their foot in their mouth and trying to get the best possible case for their religious beliefs put forward. It is always hare-brained babble, nonsense, shit thrown up against the wall until they can see what sticks. Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, apologetics is the same ridiculous game.

Third, Mohamed was never been a god, he was just a normal human being whose chosen by God he got the revelation from god via through Gebrial.

Nobody is claiming that he was God, or that anyone has claimed that he was God. You’re misunderstanding the sentence, “Mohammed was really, really stupid and ignorant, therefore God.” The “therefore God” part does not mean “therefore he was God”, but “therefore God exists”.

This is your way of debate, everytime you try to respond any of my comments you start your argument with some pretty nasty language, I don’t know what annoys you, I’m not good in psychology or the emotional intelligence so I don’t read minds.

This isn’t a philosophical or theological debate. You thinking it is, is a category error on your part. It is a scientific debate.
Evidence rules.
Your statements of faith aren’t evidence of anything other than your delusions
You claim divinity, you must evidence said divinity properly, and from the null hypothesis that science uses, namely your deity doesn’t exist, and your holy book is nothing special.
Then there is the evidence, physical evidence that would pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural (scientifically explained), origin.
Also, you claim god, you must show how god came to be. You must go back that far.
All you offer is mental masturbation to a factual based argument where your religious presuppositions are dismissed.

Second, as long as you can’t provide evidence of your Faithfull belief system you’re that God don’t exist more fanatic then any other Muslim or Christian.

I think that this lies at the heart of your misunderstanding about the atheist position. There are two abolutely fundamental concepts that you need to bear in mind when discussing truth claims about the alleged existence of gods or other supernatural entities.

First, and as mentioned above by LyleX, is Ockham’s razor – put simply, this principle (first expressed by a monk called William of Ockham, who had to create an exception to his own principle in order to make room for his god) requires that no additional unnecessary assumptions ahould be made to explain a given phenomenon, and that the explantion with the fewest extra assumptions is usually to be preferred.

As an example, imagine that a tree falls in a forest during a storm. A parsimonious explanation might look at things like recent rainfall along with wind and weather patterns, and note that the likely explanation is that the tree fell in high winds after heavy rain weakened the soil around its roots. Claiming that the tree actually fell due to a passing UFO, while presenting no evidence that such an event ever occurred, would not be parsimonious.

You are making the immense assumption that the universe was created by an omnipotent non-corpreal superconsciousness by means of what essentially amounts to magic. You provide not one shred of actual scientific evidence for this most extreme of assumptions, but you then act as if it is so utterly self evident that anyone who demurs from accepting it must be lying to others and themselves. That is an unsupportable position.

The second concept deals with the proper application of the burden of proof, and it is the Cosmic Teapot, also known as Russel’s Teapot, that proposes a scenario where someone asserts that a teapot exists and orbits the sun somewhere in the gulf of space between Earth and Mars – such a claim is unfalsifiable, since such an object is far too small to be detected by even the most powerful telescopes, and so it would be ridiculous to demand that anyone accepts the existence of the cosmic teapot purely because it is impossible to categorically prove the teapot-ists wrong.

Russel’s point is that the burden of proof must be applied to the party making the exceptional claim; it is unreasonable to try to shift that burden of proof onto the extreme claim’s critics in order to dodge the weakness of one’s evidentiary base. God is perhaps the most extreme claim of all, and is every bit as unfalsifiable as the Cosmic Teapot, and indeed more so, since it is at least conceiveable that it might one day be possible to create a device with the resolution to detect a teapot floating between Earth and Mars, but the notion of god is so mutable that you would be hard pressed to even find two believers, even from the same subsect of the same religion, who can fully agree on what their god is, or what its properties supposedly are, in any real detail.

Until you at least have a coherent concept of what your god is, and some credible scientific evidence to back it up, there really is no case to answer, and your unevidenced assertions of god are no more meaningful or compelling than the equally unevidenced assertions of the existence of fairies, vampires, cthulhu or the flying spaghetti monster (may his noodly appendage be upon you).

Of course, I am making an assumption of my own here. If you are prepared to accept the existence of your god without any scientific evidence, then in order to be intellectually consistent you must really extend the same consideration to other mythical and supernatural creatures with the same evidentiary basis (which is to say none at all).

Kalid, you really are driving people away from your god. You are not just wasting time, you are making your entire religion look stupid. And no, that isn’t an insult, it is a fact. (I am having to struggle to remind myself of my Muslim friends and my respect for them.)

Kalid, atheism isn’t a faith. It is a lack of faith. As I say it, I just don’t go to church of a Sunday. I don’t do something else, instead. Or, to make it more Muslim, I don’t fast during Ramadan, I don’t even know when it is. I also don’t observe the rituals of the Gong-fucking Sheepbeaters of Lucio Fronteenth, because they don’t exist. How can atheism BE anything, when there is so much that it is not?

Look, kalid, you cannot discuss Islam without bringing up beliefs, and I simply do not have beliefs. You don’t believe that, I know.

Kalid, that whole “embryology” passage, the one this thread is based on, that isn’t about embryos at all. It is about the initial creation of Adam. It starts with clay, and ends with other forms, both of which are initial creation. The middle bit sounds a little bit embryo, possibly deliberately. But it isn’t about embryos.

so it would be ridiculous to demand that anyone accepts the existence of the cosmic teapot purely because it is impossible to categorically prove the teapot-ists wrong.

[…and, you tacitly implied, but to be explicit]: it is also not reasonable to expect the non-believers in that teapot, to PROVE that the teapot does NOT orbit there. To reiterate, the atheists do not demand that you PROVE God exists. All they ask for is, at least, some evidence of his existence or something occurence that can ONLY be accounted for by the existence of god. That is, when atheist say, “The burden of proof is on you”, they are not requiring an overwhelming burden, just assigning a minor task. Please do so, even though I am, too, atheistic; I really want to see evidence of God’s existence or something that can NOT be accounted for by “conventional” science. Please.

Kalid, that whole “embryology” passage, the one this thread is based on, that isn’t about embryos at all. It is about the initial creation of Adam. It starts with clay, and ends with other forms, both of which are initial creation.

This made me wonder, so I went looking.

Kalid said:

There is complete story (in the haddith) addressing the history of Adam’s creation and the step by step creation process, and that does not include any of the other stages rather then the different sub-stages within the clay stage so there is no distinction about this.

First, I note that you’re not quoting the Qur’an, but in stead referencing the Hadith. That may be a minor point, but it would seem to me that this is a lesser authority.

So [The Angel of Death] took clay from the face of the earth and mixed it. He did not take from one particular place, but rather he took white, red, and black clay (from different places).

I.e. mixing substances.

The Angel of Death ascended with it, and He (Allah) soaked the clay till it became sticky.

Sticking or clinging, i.e. leech-like.

Then Allah said to the angels: “Truly, I am going to create man from clay. So when I have fashioned him and breathed into him (his) soul created by Me.

The rest of the stages condensed.

Seems to me that this text doesn’t in any way contradict the text we’ve been discussing. The text fits quite well with what we hear of Adam’s creation. At the very least, the mixing (nutfah) and clinging (alaqah) stages seem to be clearly represented here, so you can’t conclusively claim that these are to be read in an individual embryological context. They could equally well be read as part of the creation of Adam.

Since when was it okay to claim that anybody, ever, was made from clay? (And then pretend that it’s scientific)

I’m no geologist, but a brief Google search suggest that clay is primarily a mixture of silicates & metal oxides with traces of organic matter and other particulate. By contrast, humans are mostly made out of carbon, with silicon & metals existing as trace elements.

Mohammed (and countless other religions from the same region) would have been more accurate in saying that God carved people out of wood. Wood & humans have much more in common then humans & clay. This strengthens my conclusion that Mohammed didn’t have any special insight into the realms of science. He simply parroted what others around him had been saying for centuries.

You implied it. After all, if Muhammad was not ignorant, then your original question makes no sense. In that case, he could speak about these things because he knew about them; case closed.

First, being not ignorant never means he studied knowledge from other humans or schools, Its historically impossible that someone who never gone to any academy, also never read nor write, how could he speculate everything from embryology to astronomy?

So, you may say that he acquired his knowledge through spoken word, then he must met scholars from the whole world, in order to rationalize the origin of amount of knowledge in the Quran.

Then another question comes which is:

If Mohamed had had the motive to acquire knowledge how its possible he could have read or write?

Another question rises:

If Mohamed had an obsession in seeking knowledge, and had the opportunity why he didn’t go down to the specifics of what he holds as knowledge, like Aristotle and Galen, because someone who tries to be an intellectual must try to go further and make some details or innovation of the existing inherited knowledge?

I know that you won’t address these questions honestly, anyway try it.

Ockham’s razor demands that additional hypotheses be justified by evidence. The default conclusion is that god does not exist; that’s the starting point. until you prove otherwise, that’s what we’ll stick to.

Here you are repeating the same logical inconsistency that you use to draw.

First, you said:

The default conclusion is that god does not exist; that’s the starting point. until you prove otherwise

Here the truth about something that we didn’t observed yet is non-existence and its your default logic.

what about if tomorrow, we get the evidence of the truth?

Here i will predict your answer:

You may say:

that is all what i’m demanding if we get the evidence the i will accept its existence.

for example: lets use the bacteria as an analogy for illustration.

we found the truth about the bacteria:

Here: look, this found truth was always existed or at least existed before our discovery, the truth doesn’t born now but its we who only now found the missing evidence about this truth.

Here the reality about the existence of the bacteria was that bacteria existed millions of years before our discovery of it, during those millions of years we didn’t have had the evidence to observe bacteria and (evidentialists) i mean those who rely on mere evidence to accept the reality of something, had always rejected those people who believed that there is a probability that something like a bacteria could exist.

But finally when bacteria had been discovered (evidentialists) accepted that its an undenaible truth.

Here your whole logic about the truth (of relying on mere evidence to reject the alleged existence of an alleged truth) falls from the sky and crashes in its head on the ground so terribly so much so it turns in to an absolute delusion.

Why? because the whole thing about rejecting truth and again accepting it is in your mind, not reality.

You first rejected the existence of the bacteria, because of lack of evidence so you thought it never existed, but the reality was that bacteria actually existed.

Here what is fluctuating from non-existence to suddenly existence is it your mind or its the actual bacteria?

can we refer this logic as delusional or not?

Well, presumably, he got the knowledge during the fifteen years he had to prepare for it. He was married at 25, gaining access to the money that would allow him to pursue learning. He didn’t get his supposed revelations until 40.

I think we can all agree that fifteen years is quite enough time for someone to pick up the few disjointed piece of pseudo-facts that the Qur’an contains.

Well, so here the whole historical evidence that mohamed actually acuired the existing (pseudo-facts that the Qur’an contains) is 15 years timeline and his marriage of a noble woman at the age of 25 and access to money?

May be you need to tell where acquired this whole knowledge from embryology to astronomy?

which school he used to go?

how did he aquired this whole knowledge history and everything in the quran if he never read or write?

Why did he accepts both Jesus Christ, Moses, Abraham, Adam and Eve story?

Here the truth about something that we didn’t observed yet is non-existence and its your default logic.

Yours is the logic with the faults. Your deity doesn’t exist,. and you don’t have the honest and integrity to admit you believe without evidence, and by definition, you believe in a delusion….Quit lying to us. We’ve heard it all from the Xian presupositional liars and bullshitters.

May be you need to tell where acquired this whole knowledge from embryology to astronomy?

which school he used to go?

Self learning. Any fool who has read history knows that. But you are too dishonest to admit the truth.

what about if tomorrow, we get the evidence of the truth?

You think truth is your delusional belief in your imaginary deity and inerrant holy book. If you found solid and conclusive physical evidence for a deity, we would have to change our minds. But that evidence won’t be found. It hasn’t been found since humans started talking and expanding over the Earth. Your holy book is irrelevant to the truth. Your presuppositional belief in it is amusing, but it matters not. You can put anything you want into it, but still isn’t a scientific text. And never will be.

how did he aquired this whole knowledge history and everything in the quran if he never read or write?

Come on, Khalid, you know the answer. In 632 CE, after Muhammad died and a number of his companions who knew the Quran by heart were killed in battle by Musaylimah, the first caliph Abu Bakr wanted the book collected in one volume so that it could be preserved. Zayd ibn Thabit was the main person to collect the Quran. So a group of scribes, most importantly Zayd, collected the verses and produced a hand-written manuscript of the complete book.

Before anything else, consider these questions:
Do you comprehend the idea of a preliminary conclusion? Of accepting an idea only tentatively, but realizing that new data might change things? Can you even wrap your head around the idea of not dogmatically asserting an idea, but being open to changing your mind based on new information? Does your worldview allow for the concept of admitting that you might be wrong?

Keep that question in mind as you read this.

Its historically impossible that someone who never gone to any academy, also never read nor write, how could he speculate everything from embryology to astronomy?

I’ve already explained that. He was situated in a major city, with access to plenty of money. It would be trivial for him to invite traveling scholars to dinner and talking to them; it wouldn’t even require him to be able to read.

He had every opportunity to do this and clearly had the inclination as well. No need to involve supernatural means.

So, you may say that he acquired his knowledge through spoken word, then he must met scholars from the whole world, in order to rationalize the origin of amount of knowledge in the Quran.
Then another question comes which is: If Mohamed had had the motive to acquire knowledge how its possible he could have read or write?

I assume you mean how is it possible that he couldn’t have learned to read or write. Answer: maybe he was dyslexic. It’s a common enough affliction and people back then had no idea how to treat it. This explanation is certainly simpler than appealing to divine powers.

If Mohamed had an obsession in seeking knowledge, and had the opportunity why he didn’t go down to the specifics of what he holds as knowledge, like Aristotle and Galen, because someone who tries to be an intellectual must try to go further and make some details or innovation of the existing inherited knowledge?

His occupation as a merchant demanded regular travel, preventing him from daily studies with a regular tutor. This meant he never had the chance for a lengthy, organized study under a single person, but had to get his learning from a diverse group of teachers. As a result, he had good, but somewhat spotty, education, leaving him open to blind spots and misconceptions.

what about if tomorrow, we get the evidence of the truth?

Then we revise our conclusion. That’s the whole point of the scientific method; constant revision, according to the most recent information. An ever-flowing stream of knowledge.

You may say: that is all what i’m demanding if we get the evidence the i will accept its existence.

That’s right. If you give me evidence sufficient to make the existence of god the most parsimonious explanation, then I’ll accept that. That’s what a rational person does; they realize that they’re not omniscient and therefore they revise their opinions based on the available information.

You first rejected the existence of the bacteria, because of lack of evidence so you thought it never existed, but the reality was that bacteria actually existed.

You can’t argue in hindsight like that. You have to argue from the evidence you actually have, not the evidence you think you might get in the future. If, at the time, there was no evidence for bacteria, then concluding that bacteria did not exist (at least, preliminarily) was the correct, rational conclusion.

It’s easy to claim that you’ve got the truth and that the future will vindicate you. Many people do that, concluding many that I’m sure you’ll agree are wrong. If they could be wrong, couldn’t you? The only way I can tell the difference between you, a Christian, a Hindu or a Buddhist is if you give me some real evidence. Not at some point in the future, but now.

Sure, if you like you can draw a conclusion on deficient evidence, and you may even get it right once in a while, but you’ll get it wrong ten times as often. As a result, the scientific method prefers suspending judgment or drawing preliminary conclusions, rather than confidently asserting something that may turn out to be wrong.

For example, let’s say you have proposition X and you’ve got possible answers A, B and C. Your information is deficient, so you can’t tell which of the answers is the correct one.

In that case, a person who says “I don’t know” is superior to one who says “The right answer is A”, even if A is actually the right answer. “I don’t know” is the right answer because you really don’t know. The available evidence doesn’t allow a firm conslusion.
The reason for this is that the person didn’t really know that A was the right answer. Most likely, the people advocating B or C would also be proposing their answers, so how could you tell who’s right? For this reason, it’s better to suspend judgment than to assert something that you can’t support.

You are making the immense assumption that the universe was created by an omnipotent non-corpreal superconsciousness by means of what essentially amounts to magic. You provide not one shred of actual scientific evidence for this most extreme of assumptions, but you then act as if it is so utterly self evident that anyone who demurs from accepting it must be lying to others and themselves. That is an unsupportable position.

This argument can only works on poor Christians, but Islam have the exact answer.

First, i think your whole understanding is working on the anti-clockwise direction, when you are talking about scientific evidence and comparing it to Islam, don’t you know that Quran was revealed before Modern science in the 7th century:

You said:

You are making the immense assumption that the universe was created by an omnipotent non-corpreal superconsciousness by means of what essentially amounts to magic. You provide not one shred of actual scientific evidence for this most extreme of assumptions,

I have to say YES YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG ABOUT THIS. because of the following reasons:

First, in the 7th century Quran says that the universe is expanding: ( for the sake of comprehension this is the untested hypothesis)

And it is We Who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Qur’an, 51:47)

also Quran says:

<“Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, then We separated them, and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?” (Quran 21:30)

while at that time up to 19th century the mainstream existing knowledge was based on stable and fixed universe.

Then seddenly on 1929 an astronomer by the name of Vesto Slipher suddenly discovers the fact.

see this:

For thousands of years, astronomers wrestled with basic questions concerning the universe. Until the early 1920’s, it was believed that the universe had always been in existence; also, that the size of the universe was fixed and not changing. However, in 1912, the American astronomer, Vesto Slipher, made a discovery that would soon change astronomers’ beliefs about the universe. Slipher, noticed that the galaxies were moving away from earth at huge velocities. These observations provided the first evidence supporting the expanding-universe theory.

Here you see that i have the shred of evidence that God created the universe he knows what he created and tells Mohamed in the 7th century this bit of fact, science in the 19th century (10 centuries after the hypothesis) confirms this.

And look Quran is very explicit and clear about this issue when he uses the verb EXPANDING.

We Who are steadily expanding it. (Qur’an, 51:47

How do you account this?

As an example, imagine that a tree falls in a forest during a storm. A parsimonious explanation might look at things like recent rainfall along with wind and weather patterns, and note that the likely explanation is that the tree fell in high winds after heavy rain weakened the soil around its roots. Claiming that the tree actually fell due to a passing UFO, while presenting no evidence that such an event ever occurred, would not be parsimonious.

THIS IS NOT THE CASE SORRY!

The second concept deals with the proper application of the burden of proof, and it is the Cosmic Teapot, also known as Russel’s Teapot, that proposes a scenario where someone asserts that a teapot exists and orbits the sun somewhere in the gulf of space between Earth and Mars – such a claim is unfalsifiable, since such an object is far too small to be detected by even the most powerful telescopes, and so it would be ridiculous to demand that anyone accepts the existence of the cosmic teapot purely because it is impossible to categorically prove the teapot-ists wrong.

THIS IS ALSO NOT THE CASE! because the when someone says there is a Teapot orbiting around the sun between Earth and Mars, he must support his assertion with some prophecies and predictions like the Quran and that prophecies must be as significant and scientific as those in the Quran, plus that he needs that his prophecies must not be out of the existing knowledge at his time also it must be different and antithesis of the existing knowledge also he needs that his prophecies must be scientifically verified after several centuries!

Russel’s point is that the burden of proof must be applied to the party making the exceptional claim; it is unreasonable to try to shift that burden of proof onto the extreme claim’s critics in order to dodge the weakness of one’s evidentiary base. God is perhaps the most extreme claim of all, and is every bit as unfalsifiable as the Cosmic Teapot, and indeed more so, since it is at least conceiveable that it might one day be possible to create a device with the resolution to detect a teapot floating between Earth and Mars, but the notion of god is so mutable that you would be hard pressed to even find two believers, even from the same subsect of the same religion, who can fully agree on what their god is, or what its properties supposedly are, in any real detail.

Here you Russel just asserts that its not fair that the burden of proof must be applied to those who reject some alleged truth, but this is a mere wish, burden of proof must be applied both parties as long as they are opposite parts of the controversy.

You need to prove what evidence do you base your unbelief?

do you think that the absence of the evidence of existence could be at the same moment an evidence of non-existence?

If the answer is yes, Do you clearly see the inconsistency of your logic? two polar opposites can not be one thing.

You can’t argue in hindsight like that. You have to argue from the evidence you actually have, not the evidence you think you might get in the future. If, at the time, there was no evidence for bacteria, then concluding that bacteria did not exist (at least, preliminarily) was the correct, rational conclusion.

My emphasis:

If, at the time, there was no evidence for bacteria, then concluding that bacteria did not exist (at least, preliminarily) was the correct, rational conclusion.

Sorry but its not CORRECT in reality its only CORRECT in your mind or perception isn’t it?

Now you know that bacteria existed millions of years, how could you say before the discovery of bacteria, bacteria didn’t existed, this is insanity!

You know it existed but not existed in your mind at that time, so simple!

For example, let’s say you have proposition X and you’ve got possible answers A, B and C. Your information is deficient, so you can’t tell which of the answers is the correct one.

In that case, a person who says “I don’t know” is superior to one who says “The right answer is A”, even if A is actually the right answer. “I don’t know” is the right answer because you really don’t know. The available evidence doesn’t allow a firm conslusion.
The reason for this is that the person didn’t really know that A was the right answer. Most likely, the people advocating B or C would also be proposing their answers, so how could you tell who’s right? For this reason, it’s better to suspend judgment than to assert something that you can’t support.

Now you are right, your logic is consistent and not flawed but you unconsciously did something you believed a probability, even if its 0.0000000001% you are a believer in somehow that something could exist without evidence in somewhere but our sense of perception is constrained and our knowledge of evidence is limited!

Sorry but its not CORRECT in reality its only CORRECT in your mind or perception isn’t it?

Nope fuckwit, which is why science relies on instruments, not perceptions. But then, you don’t have the intellectual honesty and integrity to acknowledge you are wrong in a SCIENTIFIC argument, where you presupposition of your imaginary deity and your inerrant *snicker* holy book are meaningless drivel.

Sorry but its not CORRECT in reality its only CORRECT in your mind or perception isn’t it?

This isn’t a philosophical argument fuckwit. It is an evidence based scientific argument, where you presuppositions are tossed out the window, and you must provide real evidence to show your presuppositions are delusions on your part. Which you have failed to do. Your arguments are inconsistent with the evidence presented due to your presuppositions. Hence they fail every time.

Sorry but its not CORRECT in reality its only CORRECT in your mind or perception isn’t it?Yes, but since our perceptions are the only thing we have access to, what difference does that make? As human beings, we never have direct access to the truth. We only ever have partial information and the conclusions that we can rationally draw from it.

It’s better to draw a wrong, but rationally supported conclusion (which is open to revision in the future), than a right, but unsupported conclusion. This is science 101. If you don’t understand this, I don’t think we’re going to get very far.

Now you are right, your logic is consistent and not flawed but you unconsciously did something you believed a probability, even if its 0.0000000001% you are a believer in somehow that something could exist without evidence in somewhere but our sense of perception is constrained and our knowledge of evidence is limited!

Can I get that in English, please? I don’t understand what you’re saying.

Sorry but its not CORRECT in reality its only CORRECT in your mind or perception isn’t it?

Yes, but since our perceptions are the only thing we have access to, what difference does that make? As human beings, we never have direct access to the truth. We only ever have partial information and the conclusions that we can rationally draw from it.

It’s better to draw a wrong, but rationally supported conclusion (which is open to revision in the future), than a right, but unsupported conclusion. This is science 101. If you don’t understand this, I don’t think we’re going to get very far.

Now you are right, your logic is consistent and not flawed but you unconsciously did something you believed a probability, even if its 0.0000000001% you are a believer in somehow that something could exist without evidence in somewhere but our sense of perception is constrained and our knowledge of evidence is limited!

Can I get that in English, please? I don’t understand what you’re saying.

If our perception is limited, the answer is not to speculate beyond the evidence. Rather, the correct approach is to restrain our conclusions to the limits of the evidence. That’s the way to avoid making too many mistakes and to be as correct as we can be.

If you disagree with this, once again, I invite you to disprove the existence of Vishnu.

For example, let’s say you have proposition X and you’ve got possible answers A, B and C. Your information is deficient, so you can’t tell which of the answers is the correct one.

In that case, a person who says “I don’t know” is superior to one who says “The right answer is A”, even if A is actually the right answer. “I don’t know” is the right answer because you really don’t know. The available evidence doesn’t allow a firm conslusion.
The reason for this is that the person didn’t really know that A was the right answer. Most likely, the people advocating B or C would also be proposing their answers, so how could you tell who’s right? For this reason, it’s better to suspend judgment than to assert something that you can’t support.

But in the case of Islam, we have possibilities A (Islam is true), B (Christianity is true), C (Hinduism is true), D (Buddhism is true), E (Judaism is true), F (pastafarianism is true), G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T…etc. Since none of these religions have any evidence to back them up (apart from a few sentences here and there in various holy books that can be interpreted as reflecting modern science, usually through a lens of wishful thinking and pattern matching), there’s no reason to pick any of them, and every reason to say, “I don’t know.” Once you’ve said that, it’s a short step to, “None of them seem likely, so I’ll ignore them all.”

At this point, my eyes reflexively lose focus as soon as I see his name. Have to scroll to the next post before I can read anything. No point in trying to read what he’s writing- he doesn’t even understand the subject well enough to know what the subject even is. It’s like watching someone perform arithmetic and writing down that 2+2=banana.

Well, I base my unbelief on you, Kalid. See, I used to be kind of agnostic, in lacking a belief in a god, but not having proof that there wasn’t one, and not caring enough to educate myself. What really turned me to full-bore knowing that there is no god, I mean unbelief, not just apathy, was people like you.

The stupidity, the ignorance and the arrogance of folks like you make me certain that the whole god business is bullshit. It’s your fault, Kalid, and your god will punish you for it.

Here, let me quote from the book:

We created man from an essence of clay ….

… made from water every living thing …

Earlier, you insisted that the first statement was a reference to the first man, separating it out from a segment that you insisted was about embryology. Later, you posted the second statement, as part of a creation-of-the-universe bit, and apparently didn’t even notice it.

So which is correct? Did the great creator make the first living man from clay, or from water? Give us a good answer, Kalid, the right answer, or be punished by your god.

We created man from an essence of clay … made from water every living thing …

Did Mohamad happen to mention bacteria? That would have been a good bit of info to give to humanity … except that that would go against the plan of the sky monster who created bacteria to kill people.

And if we go by the logic of the holy ones, we can believe that bacteria didn’t exist before 1820, but were created then. Once you give your mind to belief, any damn thing is possible.

But seriously, the proper way to describe knowledge of bacteria before 1820 is to say that no-one had good reason to think they existed, and that they would have been wrong to have unshakable faith that bacteria did exist.

An aside: Kalid, you are so wound up in faith that you really cannot understand how rational people think.

But, if someone had considered the possibility that bacteria existed, and had performed a few experiments, they could have been very certain that bacteria existed, without ever having seen one. And, indeed, that is what people did.

Now, looking back, I can argue that animals exist in all sizes and all environments, and that animals exist that are almost too small to see, and that smaller animals are more numerous than large animals. So the idea that there are numerous animals, too small to see, is not unusual. But I still want some evidence.

Gods, on the other hand, are on a spectrum of ghosts and goblins and other things that are believed in, but do not exist. Any god, despite all the believers in it, is dismissed by all the rest of the people on the planet.

So I would need extraordinary evidence that a particular god existed, not just some crappy verse in a self-contradicting book that all the other believers dismiss.

Kalid, the title of this post says that you are just as wrong as the Christians. You are just as goofy, and just like them in every other way. You say that their book is wrong, they say that your book is wrong. I agree that both books are wrong.

[Russel] must support his assertion with some prophecies and predictions like the Quran and that prophecies must be as significant and scientific as those in the Quran…

Wrong. prophesies and predictions are NOT scientific evidence. Russel could just as easily assert that the teapot is there cuz he read about it in a book, or God told him last night in a dream. Are you really saying those would be ample evidence of his assertion?
Prove to me that Harry Potter is fictional.
You are telling atheists that ‘absence of evidence’ is not ‘evidence of absence’. So let’s turn that around and show us how to do that. I got 7 books that say Harry Potter exists, show me your evidence that Harry is nonexistent.

Kalid, you brought up bacteria, despite the fact that you need to explain why your god made harmful bacteria. You were babbling about what was thought before bacteria were shown to exist.

Before bacteria were known to exist, diseases were often assumed to be the work of the gods, or demons, or witches, or other supernatural causes. So once bacteria are shown to exist, we don’t need gods to explain diseases.

Of course, you think we still need a god to explain bacteria, so go ahead and give us a good reason for the little ones that cause gangrene, will you?

So before science, God was needed as an explanation. After science, God isn’t needed. Except by foolish people.

Bacteria are complex little buggers, some of them. But some are so close to basic, unliving chemicals, and some so obviously ancestral to us, that only a fool will believe that evolution is impossible. The bacteria that you brought up are strong evidence that there is no need for a god.

The goofy-ass things you write are evidence that you are wrong, except for the times when you are not even wrong.

This only goes to support the idea that Allah, like YHWH (after whom He was modelled) started the world as an imaginative child-god.

Any kid in Africa (underlain by shitloads of wonderful red laterite) will tell you how much fun it is to model little figurines out of clay. One can build up a whole little farmyard, that comes to life in one’s own imagination. One can create one’s own little Eden, down to serpents (the easiest animal of all) to well-endowed Eve’s (pinch a little around the chest), to oxen with acacia thorn horns (hell, even unicorns are possible!).

These are ancient and universal games. Often they are peoples’ first, beloved, experiences with the wonder of imagination and artistic creativity.

Clay also has pro-religious significance. In old age, and death, the figurines were wont to take on renewed importance. Buried with them, their owners would reincarnate, renewed in world’s beyond death. And their clay oxen (link here) would incarnate in this new world too.

Clay, imagination, creation, incarnation, reincarnation, …more clay. They are all bound together into the mists of time and into the depths of shared human experiences. There is little difficulty in understanding why this has been drawn upon in religious fairytales.

@ Kalid

I have no problem in becoming a Muslim (or Xtian, or Jew, or Hindu,…), it is just that I have never seen any convincing evidence. Having read fairly extensively on the history of Islam, I understand why you have come to believe what you believe. I understand the historical underpinnings of how the belief system came into being. How it has been manipulated for purely human, political ends. What I lack though is anything other than historical and/or psychological reasons for why you believe. Do you have any real, irrefutable scientific evidence? Will your arguments ever amount to more than word games and expressions of incredulity?

Let me help you with some clay: Clay forms very fine, very complex layers. These are of the same order of magnitude as RNA molecules. There is the hypothesis that it was in this layered clay substrata that the building blocks of RNA were formed by trapping and combining vast quantities of simpler organic molecules. Perhaps this is what the Koran (or rather, the Old Testament … or rather, the Torah) meant? Perhaps you should tootle along now and do your homework on this?

Yes, but since our perceptions are the only thing we have access to, what difference does that make? As human beings, we never have direct access to the truth. We only ever have partial information and the conclusions that we can rationally draw from it.

Absolutely i agree with you, its true our knowledge is limited and our sense of truth or reality is bounded with our inability to acquire full information as evidence.

, and yes we only ever have partial information and the conclusions that we can rationally draw from it.

Also i agree with you about this, but my question was:

Does our lack of enough knowledge and information make something we don’t yet observed not-truth,

All the time i am repeating this and you just don’t get it:

Here i will rephrase my question:

Does our constrained sense of reality and our lack of full information make an unobserved thing (NEVER-EXISTED) or its our imperfect perception of reality that HOLDS in default the missing information as (NEVER-EXISTED)?

let me rephrase it again:

How could you rule out the probability that god do exist given that our sense of reality is constrained by our imperfect access to knowledge?

Are you holding something as NOT IN EXISTENCE while your your full access to information is limited? what about if the evidence of this thing that you hold as NOT IN EXISTENCE is a part of the missing information since you don’t have the full information?

Does your perception (that is based on your lack of enough knowledge to judge) rules out the probability that ALLAH may exist, when I’m saying (RULES OUT) here i am not talking about in your mind or perception BUT IN REALITY?

If you want to rule out any probability, then how does absence of evidence (may be due to lack of information) acts as evidence that ALLAH don’t exist. (Something is contradicting here lack of evidence is also evidence) remember you ruled out the probability?

Please answer these question as they are and don’t try to turn around!

It’s better to draw a wrong, but rationally supported conclusion (which is open to revision in the future), than a right, but unsupported conclusion.

I’m so sorry if your logic holds wrong conclusions (based on lack of knowledge and information) and again it holds the possibility that this may or may not be right in some point in the future.

This kind of logic can only be one thing namely *DELUSION*

I have searched the meaning of the term DELUSION and here I’ve got this:

– DELUSION:

Here your logic is temporarily delusive only at some point in the future when evidence emerges it becomes rational (which means based on actual facts not temporary wrong conclusion).

Anyway the belief in ALLAH has enough evidence:

Here you go:

Again I am repeating what I have said earlier:

First, in the 7th century Quran says that the universe is expanding: ( for the sake of comprehension this is the untested hypothesis)

And it is We Who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Qur’an, 51:47)

also Quran says:

“Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, then We separated them, and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?” (Quran 21:30)

while at that time up to 19th century the mainstream existing knowledge was based on stable and fixed universe.
Then seddenly on 1929 an astronomer by the name of Vesto Slipher suddenly discovers the fact.

see this:

For thousands of years, astronomers wrestled with basic questions concerning the universe. Until the early 1920’s, it was believed that the universe had always been in existence; also, that the size of the universe was fixed and not changing. However, in 1912, the American astronomer, Vesto Slipher, made a discovery that would soon change astronomers’ beliefs about the universe. Slipher, noticed that the galaxies were moving away from earth at huge velocities. These observations provided the first evidence supporting the expanding-universe theory.

Here you see that i have the shred of evidence that God created the universe he knows what he created and tells Mohamed in the 7th century this bit of fact, science in the 19th century (10 centuries after the hypothesis) confirms this.

And look Quran is very explicit and clear about this issue when he uses the verb EXPANDING.

We Who are steadily expanding it. (Qur’an, 51:47

How do you account this?

PLEASE TELL ME HOW?

HOW SOMEONE IN THE DESERT COULD GUESS THAT THE UNIVERSE IS ACTUALLY EXPANDING?AND IN 20th CENTURY THIS IS VERIFIED?

I MEAN, AHHH….. TELL ME WHY THIS IS RIGHT SCIENTIFICALLY? AFTER 14 CENTURIES?

OTHERWISE TELL ME HOW ITS WRONG?

I AM FED UP ABOUT THE NONSENSE IN THIS DEBATE ARE YOU ALL DUMB?

IF ITS NOT RIGHT TELL ME HOW ITS WRONG?

I NEED CLEAR AND EXPLICIT ANSWER!

NOT ONLY FROM *LykeX* BUT YOU ALL !

ALSO REMEMBER YOU ALL FAILED TO CLARIFY WHERE THE EMBRYOLOGY PROPHECY IN THE 7th CENTURY IS WRONG!

REMEMBER YOU SAID AND INSISTED THAT ITS *NOT EVEN WRONG*

SAY IT AGAIN THAT THIS ASTRONOMICAL PROPHECY IS *NOT EVEN WRONG* AND I WILL TAKE IT RIGHT.

HOW SOMEONE IN THE DESERT COULD GUESS THAT THE UNIVERSE IS ACTUALLY EXPANDING?AND IN 20th CENTURY THIS IS VERIFIED?

“Huh. I wonder if the universe is expanding.” People can speculate all kinds of things. Democritus came up with the atomic hypothesis around two and a half thousand years ago, and it wasn’t confirmed until the 19th century. Was he divinely inspired by Apollo? Should I go make an offering to the sun?

kalid, you inexpressibly tedious and offensive numpty, putting rubbish in all caps does not make it anything other than rubbish.

Here you see that i have the shred of evidence that God created the universe he knows what he created and tells Mohamed in the 7th century this bit of fact, science in the 19th century (10 centuries after the hypothesis) confirms this.

And look Quran is very explicit and clear about this issue when he uses the verb EXPANDING.

So, you’ll be able to cite those Muslim thinkers who told us that the universe was expanding long before scientists found evidence that it is, won’t you? Because if you can’t, that will clearly demonstrate that this is just another case of reading into an ambiguous text what you want to see in it.

We have built the heaven with Our own might and We possess the power for it. We have spread out the earth and (behold) how excellent Spreaders We are! And We have created everything in pairs maybe that you learn a lesson from it So flee unto Allah: I am an open warner from Him to you. And do not set up another god with God; I am on open warner from Him to you

Now isn’t that odd? No mention of anything at all, let alone the universe, expanding. Oh, and if you know any biology (I’m pretty sure you don’t), you will know that there are many species that do not have separate sexes, and so cannot be said to be created in pairs. Therefore, by your own logic, the Quran is a load of tosh, and Allah doesn’t exist.

“Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, then We separated them, and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?”

The heavens and the earth were not a “joined entity” which got separated – rather, earth accreted from smaller bodies – and every living thing could not be made from water. So by your own logic, Islam is disproved and Allah doesn’t exist.

From the same translation I cited before, Quran 21:30-33:

Have not the people, who have disbelieved (the Message), ever considered this: the heavens and the earth were at first one mass; then We parted them, and created every living thing from water? Do they not acknowledge (that this is Our Creation)? And We set mountains firmly in the earth lest it should tilt to one side along with them, and We left therein open paths so that they may find their way. And We made the sky a safe canopy, but in spite of this they do not pay due heed to its signs. And it is Allah, Who has made the night and the day and created the sun and the moon; all of them are floating, each in its own orbit.

As I noted, the earth was formed by accretion, not separation. Mountains are not “set firmly in the earth”, because over long periods they are pushed up by the movement of tectonic plates, then both erode, and move with those plates. And how could a round earth “tilt to one side”? Evidently, the author of the Quran thinks the earth is flat! Something educated people had known to be false for at least a millennium before Mohamed lived. Nor is the sky a “canopy”, nor is it safe – have you not heard of meteorites, or for that matter, lightning?

Once again, your own logic shows that the Quran is ignorant hooey, Islam is balderdash, and Allah doesn’t exist.

How could you rule out the probability that god do exist given that our sense of reality is constrained by our imperfect access to knowledge?

Kalid, how do you rule out the possibility that Wotan exists? Or Zeus? Or my Imaginary Cat ™ ? Do you reject these possibilities? How is your rejection of my Imaginary Cat ™ any different from my rejection of your Imaginary Deity? (This is not a trivial question. At least not for you, given your expressed world view.)

If I link to texts concerning my Imaginary Cat ™ , would you accept these as evidence for It’s existence? If not, why not?

What if the texts were very old? If lots and lots and lots of people were convinced that my Imaginary Cat ™ really, really, really exists? If people were murdered for not believing in my Imaginary Cat ™ ? Surely that last will convince you (such has long been the main argument advanced by Abrahamic religions)?

After LykeX made such a good job at @255 of explaining why even if something does exist, one is NOT rationally justified in asserting that it does UNLESS there is sufficient evidence to do so, you have completely ignored it and mangled it into a pile of fucking non-sense. This makes it clear that you don’t even have a concept of what intellectual honesty is. You babble about logic and consistency, but you are not able of grasping something as simple as the fact that you are not justified in believing something you cannot demonstrate and that this is INDEPENDENT of wether the thing exists or not. If you fail at something that basic, this entire exchange is absolutely pointless. LykeX post was spot on. You should read it over and over until you understand that simple point…it would do your mind good. And as a bonus, it might shut you up for a while..the tones of unintelligible, repetitive, content-free drivel you vomit in here is absolutely painful to decipher.

How could you rule out the probability that god do exist given that our sense of reality is constrained by our imperfect access to knowledge?

I don’t rule it out. I just recognize the fact that the evidence does not allow me to conclude that any god exists. As such, the only rational approach is to act as if there’s no god until such a time that the evidence shows otherwise.

what about if the evidence of this thing that you hold as NOT IN EXISTENCE is a part of the missing information since you don’t have the full information?

It could be, but so what? Until I actually have the information, I can’t act on it. I can’t go around believing all sorts of things because maybe it’s true and I just haven’t discovered the evidence for it yet. That approach would lead me to believe a never-ending parade of mutually contradictory things.

I’m so sorry if your logic holds wrong conclusions (based on lack of knowledge and information) and again it holds the possibility that this may or may not be right in some point in the future.

I’m not sure what this means, but I gather that you didn’t understand what I was saying. My point is this: If you’re proceeding according to a rationally well-founded method, you might still occasionally get the wrong answer. However, since your method is sound, over time you’ll weed out the wrong answers and get progressively closer to the truth.
On the other hand, if your method is unsound, then you might occasionally get the right answer (from dumb luck or an inspired guess), but over time you’ll accumulate more and more nonsense. Since your method doesn’t lead you right, you’ll get further and further from the truth.

For that reason, the method is actually more important than whether you’ve gotten any one particular answer right. Your world view is made up of many conclusions, so it’s important that you’re right in general and not just in one particular instance. You have to have a method that reliably produces correct answers and can correct itself in case any mistakes slip in.

Science is such a reliable method. Intuition, revelation and prophecy are not.

How do you account this?

PLEASE TELL ME HOW?

Account for what? A vague guess with no particular detail? A lucky stab in the dark? What’s there to account for? I think the Hindus have a similar notion; the breath of Maha-Vishnu expanding out to form the universe. Does this mean you’re going to become a Hindu?

IF ITS NOT RIGHT TELL ME HOW ITS WRONG?

Okay, the text says “steadily expanding”, but the rate of expansion has changed over time. It was fastest very early, then slowed down due to gravity, and apparently have been speeding up most recently. Not steady at all.
Incidentally, notice how the text keeps mentioning the heavens as if it’s an actual thing? That sounds to me like a reference to a classic view of the world, with heaven as a physical dome in the sky. If we consider that option, the “expanding heavens” might refer to the celestial spheres. As the spheres are laid on, like layers of an onion, each new sphere becomes bigger than the previous. Maybe that’s what this means?

I’m sorry. There I go pointing out alternative readings again. How naughty of me.

I was visiting my mother last night, so I couldn’t be here. I see that a lot has happened in the meantime. I’ve tried to condense it all down and just hit the main points, but it’s still a long one. Brace yourselves.

O.k say your point.

But the bits that you insist don’t explain embryology fit perfectly fine into an embryological interpretation. The decision to interpret the “clay” bit outside an embryological context is an interpretative decision. The text doesn’t explicitly say, one way or the other. It just isn’t there.

what…?

You said:

The text doesn’t explicitly say, one way or the other. It just isn’t there

Again i don’t think you are actually reading my comments:

here is the Quranic text:

Which part of this text that refers the clay to the initial creation of Adam you didn’t understand?

“He It is Who created all things in the best way and began the creation of man from clay, and made his progeny from an extract of despised fluid (Sulalah) ” (32: 7-8)

My emphasis:

…and began the creation of man from clay…… (32: 7-8)

and after the initial clay creation :

….and made his progeny from an extract of despised fluid (Sulalah) ” (32: 7-8)

Which part of this text you can’t understand?

This is clear chronology, isn’t it? if no how?

You said:

The decision to interpret the “clay” bit outside an embryological context is an interpretative decision.

Its an interpretive decision which is based on supporting facts within the same text, and as i said earlier any other interpretation needs prove within the same text:

I gave you an evidence within the same text that it refers to the initial creation, so you also need to provide an evidence that contradicts this one or refers to your interpretation explicitly ( i said explicitly, because the first interpretation has an explicit reference).

You said:

I understand them fine. I just don’t agree with them. The argument you make is a fine argument for the plausibility of your interpretation, but it in no way excludes other possibilities. As far as I’m concerned, it’s still very much an open question.

what is that?

but it in no way excludes other possibilities

You know what, your i said a thousand time: any other possible interpretation must fit the text:

see here agian:

I gave you an evidence within the same text that it refers to the initial creation, so you also need to provide an evidence that contradicts this one or refers to your interpretation explicitly ( i said explicitly, because the first interpretation has an explicit reference) which is:

“….and began the creation of man from clay…”

Tell me how do you support our alternative interpretation? Or you are just asserting it?

The Qur’an refers to Adam’s creation as being from clay. The text we’re discussing talks of man being created from clay. I’m perfectly happy to grant that it’s plausible to draw a connection between these two things.

That is great its a good step towards intellectual honesty.

You said:

However, the text doesn’t explicitly make that connection. That’s just a matter of fact: It doesn’t. Nor does it make it clear how that connection is supposed to work.

How could you say this?

He It is Who created all things in the best way and began the creation of man from clay, and made his progeny from an extract of despised fluid (Sulalah) ” (32: 7-8)

The connection and the chronology is this :

1. First he created Adam from clay:

He It is Who created all things in the best way and began the creation of man from clay,

2. Next, he made his descendants from an extract of fluid.

….and made his progeny from an extract of despised fluid (Sulalah) ” (32: 7-8)

How you can’t see this chronology?

You said:

E.g. one could easily argue that since the first man is created from clay, the same is true of his descendants. So, it refers to Adam, only through the embryological precedent; the entire text would still be describing the embryology of the individual.

Again you are absolutely wrong, this interpretation is not working for this reason:

You said:

E.g. one could easily argue that since the first man is created from clay….

Yes i agree with this first sentence.

He It is Who created all things in the best way and began the creation of man from clay,(Quran)

You said:

the same is true of his descendants. So, it refers to Adam, only through the embryological precedent; the entire text would still be describing the embryology of the individual

Wrong because its inconsistent with the text which is:

….and made his progeny from an extract of despised fluid (Sulalah) ” (32: 7-8)

Descendants are not from clay!!!!!!!! but a fluid !

You said:

So, when you are saying that the bit about clay isn’t part of the embryology, thats an interpretation. The text simply doesn’t say that this is the case. The text could easily have said “I created Adam, your forefather, from clay and then created each of you from a drop of fluid…”

Yes it says, you tell me how other possible interpretation would fit the Text?

“He It is Who created all things in the best way and began the creation of man from clay, and made his progeny from an extract of despised fluid (Sulalah) ” (32: 7-8)

Tell me how your alternative interpretation would fit the text?

You said:

That would be an explicit reference (you might want to look up that word, btw). It could have said that, but it doesn’t. Despite your protestations, it just doesn’t.

YES its very explicit chronology, if its not explicit you need to elaborate how its not explicit, or you coined another interpretation for the term *EXPLICIT*?

You said:

My second point about the “safe place” goes in the other direction. If we accept that the bit about clay isn’t embryology, how do we know that the “safe place” is embryology? Maybe the transition into embryology only occurs after that point.

Good question: we know it when we apply it on the original context the text is addressing, when the text is addressing the clay its referring it to the initial creation as verse (32: 7-8) explicitly explains ( remember those words *CLAY BEGINNING* and *PROGENY OUT OF EXTRACTED FLUID*), the safe place is referred to the womb because all those embryonic stages from mingling fluid to leech-like to lamp of flesh all those stages can only occur in the womb, as this Quran verse illustrates literally:

“O mankind! If ye have a doubt about the Recreation (consider) that We created you out of clay, then out of sperm, then out of a leech-like clot, then out of a chewed-like lump of flesh, formed and unformed, in order that We may manifest (Our power) to you; and We cause whom We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term.” (22: 5) .

My emphasis:

We will to rest in the wombs for an appointed term.” (22: 5)

Do you see the explicit reference to the womb?

You said:

You whine about the “mingling fluids”, but have you considered that semen itself is a mingled fluid? It contains fluids from several glands. Ergo, the “mingled fluid” bit cannot be used to argue that this must refer to something occurring in the womb. It could refer to the composition of semen itself.

NOPE: It explicitly refers to the sperm and distinguishes from the semen or any other fluid, see here:

……and made his progeny from an extract of despised fluid

Do you see the word *EXTRACT OF FLUID*

Do you see that?

You said:

Yeah, I know. You’re going to throw a fit about be pointing out another interpretation aren’t you? Well, tough. Fact is that many interpretations are possible and completely in accord with the text. It’s only your bias that makes it impossible for you to admit it.

Again see this:

I gave you an evidence within the same text that it refers to the initial creation, so you also need to provide an evidence that contradicts this one or refers to your interpretation explicitly ( i said explicitly, because the first interpretation has an explicit reference).

You said:

Almost forgot about the homunculus bit. It’s not really central to what I was talking about, but I don’t see that the text rules it out. A small person in the fetal position and attached to the side of the womb might easily resemble a leech. Again, since the text isn’t very precise, we can’t rule it out on those grounds.

Here you are absolutely wrong, no one could have ever argued that Quran embryonic explanation are similar to those of the performationism, because;

The Quran embryoinc stages have never suggested that a miniature or thwart human in the embryo is the case, but a leech-like and a lamp of flesh ( see its a lamp of flesh, its a flesh not a full human) also according to the Quranic embryonic chronology only in the last stages the embryo gets bones and muscles, so a miniature, cannot in some time lack bones and muscles otherwise it can’t be a homunculus.

You said:

Now you’re just being silly. When’s the last time you’ve seen a chromosome stand up and proclaim its faith in Allah? No, the verse clearly refers to actual, full-grown human beings; beings with ability to reason and speak.
After all, if it refers to chromosomes, what’s the point of the follow-up? God is asking for the people to testify, so that they can’t claim ignorance later. That makes no sense if it’s only the chromosomes testifying.

No point here as long as humans include chromosomes the interpretation is working with the text, and any other alternative interpretation needs supporting material.

You said:

Honestly, I think you’re reaching even more than usual on this one. The text obviously refers to human beings; each one of us, actually; pulled fully formed from Adam’s body. It’s very clear and direct on this. If that’s not reminiscent of a homunculus, I don’t know what would be.

How could you say this? are kidding with me?

Ohh …I see you forgot the stages, NOT FULLY PULLED but a drop of mingling fluid which turns into a leech-like then a lamp of flesh then gets some bones then some muscles, Quran here is referring to the embryonic stages not homunculus.

You said:

On a more general point:
I can’t help but notice that the arguments you make actually presuppose that the Qur’an is perfect. See, without that assumption, you can’t exclude the possibility that various parts of the Qur’an simply contradict each other.

Any alleged contradiction needs elaboration Quran is not a twenty page paper but a whole book, every part is connected to the other parts and its describing each other.

You said:

So, if we leave the question of the unity of the Qur’an up in the air, you can’t actually argue that the homunculus model is disproved by another verse saying something else. It could simply be a contradiction.
That’s… wait for it… another possible interpretation.

Again you are wrong, any alleged contradiction must be elaborated, i showed you how they are consistent with each other, one verse explains the other, the contradiction must be specific and explicit.

You said:

Finally, the whole issue here is that you’re engaged in a massive pile of motivated reasoning. You’ve already decide that the Qur’an is right about everything. Therefore, you can’t even for a moment entertain the idea that it might be wrong. E.g. the clay bit is obviously wrong, so you conclude that it couldn’t possibly be referring to embryology.

NOPE that is a baseless allegation, i am presenting to you a solid argument and you are trying all the time to avoid, answer my question and explain where my argument is inconsistent.

as i said earlier about any possible alternative interpretations;

I gave you an evidence within the same text that it refers to the proposed interpretation, so you also need to provide an evidence that contradicts this one or refers to your interpretation explicitly ( i said explicitly, because the first interpretation has an explicit reference).

You said:

You’ve already decide that the Qur’an is right about everything. Therefore, you can’t even for a moment entertain the idea that it might be wrong…..That’s not honest. Your faith is blinding you. It would be so bad if at least you were willing to say that it’s just your personal view, but you can’t leave it at that. You have to pretend that it’s the one and only objective view and that’s where you drive over the cliff.

I think actually its you the one who prejudged the Quran, but for me my argument is still solid.

you said:

If you really want to prove to us that your god exists, I think you’re wasting your time with this one. It’s like hoping that if you just fertilize a rosebush enough, eventually it’ll grow to the moon. It’ll never happen. It just isn’t possible from that starting point.

again see:

You said:

It’ll never happen.

Even if you face the evidence you won’t care about it because everything in your perception is pre-supposed and pre-decided.

You said:

E.g. in #208 you explicitly reject the idea of the homunculus, in part because it’s scientifically invalid. But you can’t just assume that the Qur’an fits with science, since that the very thing under discussion. That would be begging the question.

I explicitly reject the idea of the homunculus, in part because it’s scientifically invalid but also because the logic of homunculus contradicts the whole embryonic concept that Quran is addressing. FIXED.

If you want to make your homunculus interpretation you need to get some supporting evidence from the same text, as i did, otherwise your homunculus interpretation dies when applied to the original text, cuz the text deals with an embryo evolving from a mingling fluid then a leech-like thing then a lump of flesh then bones then muscles….. a homunculus is supposed to be a full thwart human, but here there are stage where the embryo is a lump of flesh without bones.

You said:

Since the claim of divine inspiration is quite an extravagant one, it would require very clear evidence. The fact that the text, with suitable twisting, adding and excluding, can be made to fit with modern science is nothing close to the kind of evidence you’ll need to convince anyone else.

First this evidence that was prophecies in the 7th century is enough if you want take also the prophecy about the expanding universe, you can say and assert what you want because you are a free human with intellect and in independence but the very bitter truth here is that those prophecies are exactly scientifically true, and if you are talking about twisting of meaning or such thing, any alternative interpretation must fit the original text and its context, otherwise *ITS NOT EVEN WRONG* but ITS *ABSOLUTELY RIGHT*.

Kalid, if you had the honesty and integrity required to be scientist, you would approach your imaginary deity like this: Do you have the conclusive physical evidence, physical evidence that would pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers as being of divine, and not natural (scientifically explained), origin. If you have it, show it.
Now, if you don’t you must shut the fuck up about its existence. No mention of it whatsoever, no pretending divine revelation for a holy book full of bullshit.
In other words, put up or shut the fuck up.
You can’t put up, and you can’t/won’t shut up. Thanks for showing the world you lack honesty and integrity, and are nothing but a liar and bullshitter to be dismissed and laughed at.

This only goes to support the idea that Allah, like YHWH (after whom He was modelled) started the world as an imaginative child-god.

Like i said before, here to distinguish between YHWH and ALLAH we rely on 7th century prophecies, If your YHWH couldn’t predict that the universe is expanding, and could explain the stages of human embryology without any technology or observation, then its a bullshit nonsense and if you believe in him you are a complete idiot.

One can build up a whole little farmyard, that comes to life in one’s own imagination. One can create one’s own little Eden, down to serpents (the easiest animal of all) to well-endowed Eve’s (pinch a little around the chest), to oxen with acacia thorn horns (hell, even unicorns are possible!).

I don’t understand what are you talking about, the whole logic of Allah is based on prophecies.

For example ALLAH told humanity their history the history the universe its creation he told us that he created the universe and he will expand it steadily, Science verified this prophecy, also Quran explains the human embryonic development, a process which takes several stages which starts from a mingling fluid which is the sperm and the ovum when based on the context of embryology.

While at that time the existing knowledge believed thwart human in the sperm or the menstrual blood or like Aristotle a coagulation occurs just after the mate. science disproves all those assertions that were believed at the same time that Quran was revealed, and proves the Quranic prophecies or to be exact at least scientists say (NOT EVEN WRONG).

This is not about a superstition but a pure sane logic, if you can’t see this its up to you.

Clay, imagination, creation, incarnation, reincarnation, …more clay. They are all bound together into the mists of time and into the depths of shared human experiences. There is little difficulty in understanding why this has been drawn upon in religious fairytales.

Yes the story of the creation of Adam from clay is included in all Abrahamic religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Judaism was a valid religion before the Jesus Christ, after Jesus Christ was born by marry and Christianity come in to existence, Judaism was no longer valid, then Christianity was a valid religion until Islam come into existence, Islam was the last update of all those religions, and the perfect.

I have no problem in becoming a Muslim (or Xtian, or Jew, or Hindu,…), it is just that I have never seen any convincing evidence.

As i told you before prophecies are the main evidence, if you can’t disprove the expanding universe that Islam talked about before 1400 years or atleast if you say its *NOT EVEN WRONG* then Islamic logic is consistent and Allah is undeniable truth because e.g he told as that he created the universe and expanding it.

Having read fairly extensively on the history of Islam, I understand why you have come to believe what you believe. I understand the historical underpinnings of how the belief system came into being. How it has been manipulated for purely human, political ends. What I lack though is anything other than historical and/or psychological reasons for why you believe. Do you have any real, irrefutable scientific evidence? Will your arguments ever amount to more than word games and expressions of incredulity?

I agree with you about the historical manipulation of christian and Jewish theology and i am deeply sorry to admit that but its a true history.

I remember how the church insulted the very basic rights of humanity, liberty and how it rejected knowledge science, Islam even would vote against the church for the side of Galileo, also i know the political oppression an d the Socio-economic servitude, but that is not what Islam is based on.

Let me help you with some clay: Clay forms very fine, very complex layers. These are of the same order of magnitude as RNA molecules. There is the hypothesis that it was in this layered clay substrata that the building blocks of RNA were formed by trapping and combining vast quantities of simpler organic molecules.

Here you are demonstrating the full extent of your ignorance about science, have you ever read about how live first began, it was the integration of those very chemical elements that found in earth, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, hydrogen and phosphorus, all of those elements take part in the process of clay formation (weathering, carbonic acid, water, wind) ask Wikipedia ( clay formation) and count down those elements that involve in the process.

Here you are [I am] demonstrating the full extent of your ignorance about science, h

Fixed that for your abject loser. You don’t know how to do science. If you did, your book of mythology would be exactly that, mythology. You deity doesn’t exist, you haven’t evidenced it, just presupposed it (which is UNSCIENTIFIC), and therefore there can’t be any divine revelation. All invented in your delusional mind.

When comfronted with evidence that you are wrong, ignore and continue to insist on your demonstrably incorrect assertions. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. Drive everybody away because they can’t stand your dishonesty and your unwillingness to include new information in your thought processes. Declare yourself a winner.

kalid
From the Wikipedia article linked by anteprepro that you didn’t read.

The phrase not even wrong describes any argument that purports to be scientific but fails at some fundamental level, usually in that it contains a terminal logical fallacy or it cannot be falsified by experiment (i.e. tested with the possibility of being rejected), or cannot be used to make predictions about the natural world.

Like i said before, here to distinguish between YHWH and ALLAH we rely on 7th century prophecies, If your YHWH couldn’t predict that the universe is expanding, and could explain the stages of human embryology without any technology or observation, then its a bullshit nonsense and if you believe in him you are a complete idiot.

As if we needed any more fail from you. ALLAH and YHWH are the same fucking God, you fucking idiot. Allah is the Arabic name for the Abrahamic God. YHWH is its supposed True Name, in Hebrew, whereas Elohim, Adonai, and other shit are his Hebrew Nicknames. It is the same fucking God. Jews had it first, then Christians stole their holy book and stapled on Jesus fanfiction, and then Mohammed read it all and rewrote his own version with even more unique fantastical elements added in. Same God. It is why the term “Abrahamic religions” exists. Learn something you fucking ignoramus.

As for “prophecy”: you are a credulous fuckwit.

Look up:
Cold Reading and Horoscopes (Using vague predictions or stating the obvious to look psychic)
Texas Sharp Shooter Fallacy (Determining your “targets” after the fact)
Confirmation bias (You tend to ignore the evidence that contradicts your views i.e. unfulfilled prophecies)
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy (When consciously or unconsciously you attempt to make a prediction come true) Postdiction (The list of the bad qualities overlaps with many of the ideas above. In addition, mentions not having a time limit, repeating the prediction until it sticks, unfalsifiability, and predictions that are only made public after the thing it “predicted” already occurred)
And for all of the above outside of a religious context, see Nostradamus.

You are a clown. You are easily impressed by con games. You actively perpetuate the same cons and think we are suckers enough to fall for it. Sorry, but we aren’t as easily fooled as you are.

Here you are demonstrating the full extent of your ignorance about science, have you ever read about how live first began,

Again, you reach new depths of stupidity! LykeX, in the quote you were responding to, was giving you an example of a way in which the Koran might have been right (-ish). LykeX was giving you a new angle to explore! A new way that you might have a point instead of being ridiculously wrong!

Because elemental composition, the angle that you keep insisting on, is just a complete and utter failure for you and your precious holy book. The most important element in humans is carbon. The key element that keeps appearing in most forms of clay is silicon. Silicon is similar to carbon, but is not carbon . We are not silicon based lifeforms. We are not. You lose.

Kalid, I have shown you a contradiction in the Quran, and you have ignored it. The Quran says that all living things were made from water, AND it also says that Adam was made from clay.

Kalid, there are only three possible states for the universe. It can be steady, it can be expanding, or it can be contracting. Now, you want us to throw out everything that we know, and to join your faith, because somebody once guessed the right one out of those three? I’d rather stake my immortal soul on a coin flip.

Look, if he had said the universe is vaster than you can imagine, and expanding, and that the expansion is getting faster and faster, you might have something. I would still want to know what all the rest of the universe is for, but I would be impressed.

But as it is, it sounds like a primitive idea of a domed, flat earth, muddled by the years and translations.

Kalid, you seem confused about the “not even wrong” thing. It doesn’t mean that your argument is transcendent, it means that your argument is incoherent. Look, if we ask what two plus two equals, we know that four is right. Any other number is wrong, and we can show that it is wrong. A rambling discourse on the numinence of Allah isn’t even wrong, because it has nothing to do with the math.

See: 2+2=4 is right. 2+2=6 is wrong. 2+2=Allah isn’t even wrong. It’s what we say when someone is so far lost that they might as well be a dog barking.

Kalid, you keep asking us to admit that we might be wrong in assuming that Allah does not exist, when we don’t know everything yet. Again, you do not understand that non-religious people think. We have said several times that we do not exclude the possibility, but you don’t comprehend anything that is not said in the way that you want to hear it. You really do read and think poorly, and should not be basing your life on a book, nor should you be arguing for your religion. I mean, damn, you are a bad example.

Kalid, you are the proof that Allah does not exist. You, Kalid. Let me try to explain it so that you can understand.

I know that I don’t know everything, and it is possible that some proof of Allah may yet be found. I have no reason to think that he does exist, or that it is even possible that he does exist, but I do not yet have proof that he does not exist.

Now, to know that Allah does not exist, I would have to know everything, and to be aware of everything in the universe, and to be able to see back and forth in time, before I could say that he was definitely not ever to be found. And, if I could do all that, I would be Allah, and Allah would therefore exist. (This is Christian logic. As PZ says, we have done this before.)

But there is a way to say that Allah does not exist, without being everywhere. We simply need to show that Allah is not everywhere, and does not, therefore, exist. All we need is to find one little place that we can prove is empty of Allah, and he evaporates in a puff of logic.

Now, where is the place that Allah is most likely to be, where his presence is strongest, where he is always to be found and felt? Why, in the heart of a believer.

No, I don’t mean the literal heart. I mean the metaphorical heart, the metaphysical heart, the heart and soul, the spirit, the mind, the thoughts of a believer. That is where we shall find Allah.

Kalid, is Allah in your heart? Does he guide you in your writing? Is your work as good as his? Does your truth reflect his hand and his presence?

No, it doesn’t.

Kalid, you say that Allah wrote things that no man could have known, with clarity and truth that shines down the centuries, illuminating this sordid world. Well, you don’t say that, because you can’t write for shit.

Oh wow, you are right, kalid, It was actually theophontes who said that. Serious business. I guess I am proven a fraud and a liar. You really do cut to the heart of the matter and address the most important issues. *eyeroll*

ALLAH is not YHWH, Allah has 99 niknames and YHWH is not one of them.

Yes, because all of those other names ARE ALSO IN ARABIC. You fucking idiot.

You are so devout that you know less about your own God than fucking wikipedia

Allah (English pronunciation: /ˈælə/ or /ˈɑːlə/; Arabic: الله‎ Allāh, IPA: [ʔalˤˈlˤɑːh] ( listen)) is the Arabic word for God (al ilāh, iliterally “the God”).[1][2][3] The word has cognates in other Semitic languages, including Alah in Aramaic, ʾĒl in Canaanite and Elohim in Hebrew…

but it has also been used by Arab Christians since pre-Islamic times.[6] It is also often, albeit not exclusively, used by Bábists, Bahá’ís, Indonesian and Maltese Christians, and Mizrahi Jews.[7][8][4] Christians and Sikhs in West Malaysia also use and have used the word to refer to God. …..

The Aramaic word for “God” in the language of Assyrian Christians is ʼĔlāhā, or Alaha. Arabic-speakers of all Abrahamic faiths, including Christians and Jews, use the word “Allah” to mean “God”.[4] The Christian Arabs of today have no other word for “God” than “Allah”

And another article

Islamic theology identifies God as described in the Qur’an as the same god of Israel who covenanted with Abraham.[29] Islam and Judaism alike reject the Trinity of Trinitarian Christianity, instead teaching that God is a singular entity beside whom no one else should be worshiped. However, the identification of God both in Islam and in Christianity with the God of Abraham led to a limited amount of mutual recognition among the Abrahamic religions.

Who is too stupid to be real again, kalid?

I would place my bets on the guy consistently fucking up science, English, and his own religion. That’s where the smart money is.

a.Quran exactly confirms with the modern biology of human embryology because:

I.In the context of modern human embryology we know that two substances are mingling or fussing with each other.

Cells aren’t fluids.

The only interpretation that is possible relative to the context here is that it refers to the male sex chromosomes, as we know the male caries X-Y sex chromosome while the female is X-X so as long as the male caries both X and Y chromosomes, its the male who determines the sex of the foetus.

No, it’s random chance that does that; no male is able to pick and choose whether a sperm cell carrying an X chromosome or a sperm cell carrying a Y chromosome will meet the egg cell first.

Okay, time out for a second. Is “lamp” of flesh a typo or not? If not, then what the hell?

It’s “lump”. That’s pronounced almost the same (especially if you start from a very small vowel inventory, like that of Arabic), so kalid confused them.

Since Allah doesn’t exist, this is a non-sequitur. Typical of your idiocy.

But if don’t like to argue like a civilized human, you are free to proceed the nonsense.

Your the one not arguing in a civilized manner and proceeding from theological nonsense, not science. You don’t define the arguments, we do. Your arugment is totally theological. For it to be scientific, you must presume your deity doesn’t exist unless you provide conclusive physical evidence for it. If you presuppose, anything beyond that point is theology, not science. That is reality,…

[YHWH] then its a bullshit nonsense and if you believe in him you are a complete idiot.

Do you really want to own that statement? Are you pretending that Muhammad did not steal his best ideas from the Jews (who then proceeded to laugh him off)?
I told you the story of CLAY. That is important shit, but now you say it is “bullshit nonsense”. Don’t let Mo, or Allah, hear you talking like that!

the whole logic of Allah is based on prophecies.

Listen Kalid, “prophecy” is not what you think it means. A prophet is a director (much like a movie director today) (s)he tells people how to act on a stage. “Prophecy” is not a prediction, but an instruction. It is not so fucking amazing when a director tells an actor to do something and they do it. This concept is far older than your Imaginary Sky-god ™ . This was stock-in-trade in the religious industry, before the little upstart Muhammad arrived with his charlatanism.

he told us that he created the universe and he will expand it steadily

Chill dude. Have you ever heard of Aristarchus of Samos? He expressed far greater universal truths than Muhammad. For example, a heliocentric, as opposed to a geocentric, model of our solar system. This is far more important than knowing that the universe is expanding (how fast, so what, who the fuck cares?) Do I need to spell out to you why this is true? Do you understand the import of this?

.

(Hey, show Allah some respect: In English, we capitalise all pronouns pertaining to gods. Use capital H ie: “He” rather than “he” when refering to “real”, “non-imaginary”, “not-made-up-by-a-charlatan” gods.)

.

This is not about a superstition but a pure sane logic, if you can’t see this its up to you.

Kalid, I really feel for you when you wax lyrical about science and logic. There was a time that Islam was at the forefront of science. There was a time when Islam was honest. And then suddenly everything changed. Magic thinking took hold and everything went for a ball of shit. Even though I think Muhammad was a religious charlatan (no different than so many others before and after), I do think he honestly cared about science in his own way. Why do you seek to betray that legacy? Why have you devolved your position to one of presupposition and magic thinking. Your own god will hate you for such betrayal.

Islam was the last update of all those religions

But not the last ever. Bullshit takes on a life of its own. It evolves. Stories, narratives, lies, … these all evolve. Have you noticed how Islam has evolved into a violent, hateful, suicidal perversity in recent times. As borne out by Boko Haram and Isis. (Where do you stand in this regard?)

if you can’t disprove the expanding universe that Islam talked about before 1400 years

Lucky guess? WTF do I care? I throw a dice and pay you $10 if your number comes up. You don’t have to godfap when you win. There was a 1/6 chance all along. (You heard about Ptolemy’s Geographia and Democritus’s Atom right? Must I go and worship Isis (hehehe) and Apollo too?)

I remember how the church insulted the very basic rights of humanity, liberty and how it rejected knowledge science, Islam even would vote against the church for the side of Galileo, also i know the political oppression an d the Socio-economic servitude, but that is not what Islam is based on.

Islamists, Wahhabists treating women like shit…. What is it that you fail to understand about the way Islam has perverted itself in this day and age? Is there any clearer way to say what I have to say than to point out the way new innovations in Islam have betrayed (in part through bullshitting apologists like yourself) Mohammad’s early vision.

Kalid, I think you need to deal with the possibility that you are not as smart as you think you are. That is, not smart at all. Which is too say, incredibly fucking stupid. Like, incredibly stupid. Amazingly. To an almost supernatural degree.

If someone were to read out your comments to a three year old as a bedtime story, they would always respond “that’s fucking bullshit”. Read it to an infant, and it would instantly age five years and say the same thing.

If you were to read your comments out to a potted plant, by the end of the day the plant would have doubled in size, growing exclusively in the direction of the nearest electrical socket.

If you were to read out your comments within a ten foot radius of a coma patient, it would be considered euthanasia in 37 states.

Reading your comments out multiple times per day to prisoners is considered a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

It is said that if you were print out your comments and eat them, it would play out like Flowers for Algernon in reverse.

Other creationists read your shit and say “well, that’s just stupid”.

If you were set up in a fair debate against a golden retriever, you would lose nine times out of ten.

If your Koran had a voice, it would be weeping and pleading with you to just go out and play stick ball with the kids down the street every time you head over to your computer.

Mohammed shakes his head in shame every time you say or write anything, muttering to himself “this is even worse PR than those terrorists”

Anyone who survived reading this entire thread without having their eyes melt would be instantly converted to atheism due to your sheer incompetence.

I’ve seen oil slicks deeper than you, twice as clear and three times as bright.

And with all that, I am embarrassed for you. I am nowhere near on your side, and yet your argumentation is so pitiful that I can’t help but feel the shame that you clearly cannot. I can only imagine how the people who actually do feel like they are on your side feel.

Oh wow, you are right, kalid, It was actually theophontes who said that. Serious business. I guess I am proven a fraud and a liar.

Saywut!? Using the name of Your Illustrious Tardigrade™ in vain?
.
.
.
Oh… I see. YHWH = ALLAH?

Well, this is how Muhammad started out. He wanted to be the new Jewish prophet, but they went and told him to fuck off. I’m not really surprised, as they had spent (many,many,many) years building that particular brand. Why would they dilute it for some illiterate upstart? So anyway, Muhammad got pissed off by this and became progressively more aggressive. This issue has, as yet, still not been resolved.

@ Kalid

Do you think that my response to anteprepro is not accurate? Do you want me to press this issue? Evidence? Citations? Either you know what I am talking about, or you don’t know your own religious history (in which case fuck off until you have done your homework.)

What do we get instead? Arbitrary dietary restrictions based entirely on magical thinking, bafflegab about afterlife and souls, bad prophecies, and what one might call “drunk history”.

Even if we grant the “prophecies” presented so far, it is just crude embryology, a very crude description of the Big Bang, shit about the universe expanding, and some random bafflegab about how humans are composed of something similar to clay. What divine insight! Care to mention about the evolutionary history of man, Allah? Care to mention anything about cells, Allah? Anything about how to combat disease? Anything about the size and scope of the universe? Or how it is organized? Why it is expanding? Or the general principles of physics? Or what, exactly, is the nature of the commonality between man and clay? No, none of that? Just vague shit that only sort of makes sense if you interpret it after the fact? Well, I guess Allah works in mysterious ways.

I thought this was obvious, but apparently not, so let me make it clear: When I speak of “this text” I’m talking about the actual text under discussion; surah 23, verses 12-14. I’m not talking about the whole of the Qur’an.

In fact, the more I think about it, the less inclined I am to give other parts of the Qur’an any weight at all in this matter. We can’t take it as given that the Qur’an is a single, unitary text, free from contradictions. As such, one surah saying this or that is not the final word on what another surah means. The gold standard for interpreting a text must be the text itself, not another, separate text.

So, you’re quite right that the Qur’an elsewhere explains the creation of Adam, but it’s a simple fact of life that the text in question, 23:12-14, does not mention this story, nor makes explicit reference to it.

As I showed, it easily could have. It would be extremely trivial for the text to clearly indicate that the clay stage was referring to Adam’s creation and nothing else. However, the text very conspicuously doesn’t say that.

So, I’ll stick to my present position: The interpretation of clay as referring to Adam is plausible, but by no means the only possible reading. The plain reading of the text, as translated by Muslim scholars themselves, allows for other interpretations.

kalid, you inexpressibly tedious and offensive numpty, putting rubbish in all caps does not make it anything other than rubbish.

Every word in your above sentence shows how offensive you are, read all of my comments and its so little to find any personal insults.

Simply showing the inconsistency of your logic does not mean that i am offensive, truth may seem offensive to the flawed logic

So, you’ll be able to cite those Muslim thinkers who told us that the universe was expanding long before scientists found evidence that it is, won’t you? Because if you can’t, that will clearly demonstrate that this is just another case of reading into an ambiguous text what you want to see in it.

What do you mean by this?

This is so clear, i am quoting the original text, where is the ambiguity?

“With power did we construct the heaven verily, we will extend the vastness of the space thereof.(Quran 51:47).

My emphasis: see here:

we will extend the vastness of the space thereof.(Quran 51:47)

which part is ambiguous?

Now isn’t that odd? No mention of anything at all, let alone the universe, expanding. Oh,

I here also you are trying to demand more details and specifics, and you are attempting deliberately to neglect and chump of this important fact, yes its expanding and no one could have guessed and asserted that the universe is expanding, and all those guesses are scientifically verified (its not only this but add the prophecy about the human embryology) then its not a guess its something more than that.

Oh, and if you know any biology (I’m pretty sure you don’t), you will know that there are many species that do not have separate sexes, and so cannot be said to be created in pairs. Therefore, by your own logic, the Quran is a load of tosh, and Allah doesn’t exist.

First, I don’t understand why did you twist the word pairs in the verse and replace its place the word sexes.

Second, Yes everything was created by pairs the very concept that the whole universe is made and live began was the integration of the atoms different chemical elements for example one atom of oxygen combines with two atoms of hydrogen and generates water, this whole chemical process cannot take place if there are no negative and positive ions that interact each other.

if you know any biology (I’m pretty sure you don’t)

I don’t what did you mean by this, I am not alleging that i know everything about biology but i extend my knowledge everyday, but its too ironic that someone who cannot understand the very basic thing in sustaining life and every reaction in the universe is (Ions with different charges).

Look every reaction needs different charges in order to produce a result, if there is not charge then no reaction no creation.

As I noted, the earth was formed by accretion, not separation. Mountains are not “set firmly in the earth”, because over long periods they are pushed up by the movement of tectonic plates, then both erode, and move with those plates. And how could a round earth “tilt to one side”? Evidently, the author of the Quran thinks the earth is flat! Something educated people had known to be false for at least a millennium before Mohamed lived. Nor is the sky a “canopy”, nor is it safe – have you not heard of meteorites, or for that matter, lightning?

You said:

…As I noted, the earth was formed by accretion, not separation.

I don’t understand what do you mean by accretion not separation,!

…the heavens and the earth were at first one mass; then We parted them..

Which part of this above sentence you didn’t understand ? or just you need the meaning of the verb *PARTED*, it means to be divided into parts or separated.

Mountains are not “set firmly in the earth”, because over long periods they are pushed up by the movement of tectonic plates, then both erode, and move with those plates.

Sorry, here is the fact about the principle of Isostacy:

the state of gravitational equilibrium between the earth’s lithosphere and asthenosphere such that the tectonic plates “float” at an elevation which depends on their thickness and density.

This concept is invoked to explain how different topographic heights can exist at the Earth’s surface. When a certain area of lithosphere reaches the state of isostasy, it is said to be in isostatic equilibrium. Isostasy is not a process that upsets equilibrium, but rather one which restores it (a negative feedback). However, isostasy provides an important ‘view’ of the processes that are happening in areas that are experiencing vertical movement. (quoted from Wikipedia)

We understand that mountains take part in stabilizing earth’s crust by casting from the underneath to the top of earth’s crust do to the tectonic plates. Mountains have deep roots, because they have thick crust they float on the mantle and exert gravitational pressure to the mantle, since they are not moving they are in equilibrium, that means the upward forces are equal and opposite downward forces, as they have thick crust they are firm and prevent frequent movements of the mantle, in that way they prevent continues shaking and non-stop earthquake. ( although not all earthquakes but but they reduce the effect of the moving mantle by absorbing the force acted on them underneath)

For example you see how ships and boats float, its somehow the same they use whats called buoyancy which is the downward force gravitational force is applied to upward force (due to difference in density the floating object won’t sink) The more weight and mass of the floating object increases the more its stability increase.

As we know all of the earths crust is floating so if there were no mountains the crust will be thin and then unstable, because of the moving mantle underneath.

And He has set firm mountains in the earth so that it would not shake with you… [Noble Quran 16:15]

And how could a round earth “tilt to one side”? Evidently, the author of the Quran thinks the earth is flat!

You know that the translation cannot be as exact as the original language, anyway your quoted verse which in English includes an interpretation from the author of that translation but the original text never includes the word *tilt* in the original text which is the majority of translations, you can Google the verse: Quran 78:6-7

….and every living thing could not be made from water …..

You misunderstood this part of the verse the original arabic text says:

Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe? (21:30)

If you know Arabic the verse never uses the term *creation* but in the creation of the clay its uses this word, here the verse says “we made everything living on water” its explains a dependency not creation from water, and i swear if you take this as an assignment and make some linguistic research you will find that.

It means we made life dependent on water, see you are trying to point out that Quran is contradictory but unconsciously you are proving how Quran is valid and consistent.

If you know any living organism that lives without water, that would be another discussion.

1. The universe is presently expanding
2. The universe is presently contracting
3. The universe is holding its same volume

A 33% chance of blindly guessing the right answer…. hardly a feat. Served without further observations or explanations, I can only assume that he guessed.

How could you assume that he could have guessed from Human embryonic development,to the Big bang and an expanding universe and all those of them is scientifically right, at least not wrong?

If you are honest and if your logic is quite un-deluded you could figure-out that this is not about guess or speculation, why someone who interests in guessing and speculation got wrong about those things?

“If we add up the total mass of material (crust and mantle) in a 1m x 1m column down to a depth of around 100 km below sea-level, we get roughly the same sum everywhere. That is the pressure at that depth is the same everywhere and, given that hot rock is weak, we expect that any unbalanced loads will cause motion. An added load on the crust should cause subsidence and vice-versa.”

It would seem that mountains don’t stabilize the earth via isostasy. Just the opposite, they contribute to the movement of the plates as well as to rise & fall of regions on a plate. Mountains notwithstanding, continental land masses have much thicker crusts than the ocean. 40 km crust of continental shelf gains relatively little by adding some 2-3 km high mountains. Lastly, mountainous regions don’t protect against earthquakes as a general rule. The mountains where I live are all very young, so mountains are a warning sign of earthquakes around here.

How could you assume that he could have guessed from Human embryonic development,to the Big bang and an expanding universe and all those of them is scientifically right, at least not wrong?

They are not even wrong since you require an imaginary deity for those statements. Until you prove that deity exists, you aren’t even wrong. You have a category error of talking theology, and pretending it is science. Your theology will never be science.

So supposing we grant that these statements are actually referring to the expanding universe and accurate embryology and whatnot. That means that Muhammad was told these things were true and, with no means to prove them, just shrugged and wrote them down. Doesn’t that call into question a lot of other things in the book? If he’s just unquestioningly writing down anything he’s told is true, no fact checking needed?

How could you assume that he could have guessed from Human embryonic development,to the Big Bang and an expanding universe and all those of them is scientifically right, at least not wrong?

I missed the part where the Quran was correct about human embryonic development in any surprisingly predictive fashion. And the choice of analogies is apparently destructive to learning the actual details of the process in present-day settings. So any grains of truth that might be there is drowned out by the obvious falsehoods.

Big Bang–beings you yourself asked about what accretion had to do with Earth’s formation, I take that as evidence that the Quran didn’t have much to say about the start of the universe beyond “it started suddenly”. I strongly suspect this is really just a case of reading into the verse the necessary meaning. For example, if the Quran had said the “creation of the Earth was a long & arduous process”, apologists would ignore the Big Bang and be really zooming in on the time required for generations protostars/stars–>waiting for the stardust to condense into Earth–>waiting for the Earth to cool–>and then finally life 10+ billion of years after it all began.

Expanding universe–As I said before, lucky guess. Being right or wrong is no different than correctly guessing a coin toss.

Worse, in none of these cases are explanations given as to HOW we could know them to be true. The Quran asserts that “God did it” or that “this is the way it was” and that’s all there is to it. Science by contrast has specific evidence for these things: (having observed embryo & fetal development in a wide number animals & people, studied how the stars tells us about the galaxies they are in, demonstrated light moves in predictable fashions allowing us to calculate relative movements of objects).

If you are honest and if your logic is quite un-deluded you could figure-out that this is not about guess or speculation, why someone who interests in guessing and speculation got wrong about those things?

There is nothing here that is “revolutionary” or evidence of “divine inspiration”. All of these ideas have roots in pre-Quranic materials. They are reflective of the society from which they were drawn and nothing more. I don’t condemn Mohammed for being ignorant of embryology–I disapprove of you for acting as if he was a visionary or a modern authority on the matter (he’s not). You are right–I don’t think Mohammed guessed or speculated…I think he plagiarized others who did.

Since Kalid seems incapable of learning dear lurkers, I’ll let you know where Kalid has the fatal problem with his claims.

Science sees any holy book as being written by men, men with knowledge (including past knowledge to make certain prophesies seem right), and certain bigotries, all available at the time the pieces of the works were written down and “solidified”. So the Koran, Bible, or any other holy text is nothing but what the scribes wrote down, without any divine revelation.

The problem with “divine revelation”, is that no matter what the deity, once a description of it and its powers can be factually tested, they are falsified, in the sense that the deity can’t be shown to exist. When it happens each and every time over a millienia or so, the null hypothesis becomes non-existence for deities. Ergo, science ignores unevidenced deities. Which mean science ignores all of them, as there isn’t any evidence for any of them.

Kalid’s thesis is that due to “divine revelation”, the Koran describes certain presently known scientific points, and is therefore proof of this “divine revelation”. Which is getting ahead of the process. First of all, Kalid has to show the Koran is 100% correct, and not just a percentage expected from the scribes at the time the book was written in final form. Kalid hasn’t done that. Cherry picking is a time honored method of True Believers™ to lie and bullshit, and that is all his examples are. Cherry picking.

But the real icing on the cake is the “divine revelation” part. This, because of the null hypothesis, requires Kalid to demonstrate with physical evidence the divinity he claims made the revelations exists. In other words, it requires evidence from sources outside of the “revelations”, which are considered written down men. Something like an eternally burning bush is needed. This is nowhere to be seen in Kalid’s fuckwittery. Kalid presuming a deity is presuppositional argument, not allowed by science, but typical of theology. So all Kalids prose is asinine theology, without one whiff of real science, until Kalid properly evidences the deity. And like all presupoositionalist, the excuses are amusing and show there is no intellectual or personal honesty and integrity present.

So Kalid, the two questions you can’t/won’t answer:
1) Where the fuck is your equivalent of the eternally burning bush to evidence your diety?
2) What evidence is required for you to admit you are WRONG?
Failure to answer is de facto evidence you are a liar and bullshitter proselytizing….

They are reflective of the society from which they were drawn and nothing more. I don’t condemn Mohammed for being ignorant of embryology–I disapprove of you for acting as if he was a visionary or a modern authority on the matter (he’s not). You are right–I don’t think Mohammed guessed or speculated…I think he plagiarized others who did.

kalid, put up or shut up. PROVE that he understood the errors. Regurgitating the same information and making it vaguer is not proof that he knew more and was intentionally avoiding parts he knew to be wrong. The more likely hypothesis is just that he was, you know, regurgitating information. People usually forget the precise details of the things that are providing from second or third hand sources. I think that is far more likely than Psychic Scientist Mohammed.

Also, there is nothing right about men made out of clay and nothing right about The Stage of Bones. You are wrong. Consistently. About pretty much everything.

He is not in everywhere but at that specific place namely * SIDRAT AL MUNTAHA* he some times go around but not in earth, he has intellect, knowledge power but he isn’t relative nor similar to humans.

Our knowledge is constrained to observe his physical existence but no one can reject this truth, if someone needs to falsify this you welcome give us your evidence the burden is on your side, but the rest of us we rely on existing sceince and prophecies.

If you have some problems with prophecies then say where they are wrong not babble that it’s not even wrong ! Lets taste this bitter truth and say it’s right and not even wrong.

I don’t what did you mean by this, I am not alleging that i know everything about biology but i extend my knowledge everyday, but its too ironic that someone who cannot understand the very basic thing in sustaining life and every reaction in the universe is (Ions with different charges).

Look every reaction needs different charges in order to produce a result, if there is not charge then no reaction no creation.

Not all reactions involve ionic compounds. There are many reactions in which there is no charge transfer at all, such as the reaction of iodine with bromine to make iodine monobromide, or the hydrogenation of an alkene to give an alkane.

Idiot still doesn’t understand what “not even wrong” means and is still yammering on and proudly displaying their ignorance. It isn’t related to their core religious dogma, and yet they are still to stubborn and/or stupid to get it. Simultaneously depressing as shit and hilarious as fuck.

When you are using theological fuckwittery to claim it is scientific without evidencing your diety? You are not even wrong. You are in California, looking west over the Pacific Ocean, and expecting the sun to rise in your vision….You aren’t even in the argument….

Because he understood their errors ( look he even never got an academic schooling never read nor write) !

Maybe he just didn’t understand the position well enough to clearly explain it. Maybe his lack of formal, structured education meant that his grasp of the concepts was weak, making it necessary to keep his explanations vague and superficial, and giving you more room to explain away the flaws than if he has been more specific.

I’m almost getting hoarse from repeating this, but it seems I have no choice: The text is not sufficiently clear for us to tell one way or the other. Maybe this or maybe that; we just don’t know. However, given that we don’t know, it’s highly irresponsible and irrational to jump to a conclusion of divine inspiration. The evidence just doesn’t support that.

This argument can only works on poor Christians, but Islam have the exact answer.

This ought to be good.

First, i think your whole understanding is working on the anti-clockwise direction, when you are talking about scientific evidence and comparing it to Islam, don’t you know that Quran was revealed before Modern science in the 7th century:

The argument from antiquity? Really, that is your answer? Older doesn’t mean better, if it did, we would still believe that the Earth was flat. There is also the fact that neither your religion, the earlier religions it is based upon, or the scientific method were ‘revealed’. The scientific method was developed as a means of accruing evidence about the universe around us and how it functions while avoiding cognitive misfires, presuppositions, or other forms of bias. Religion is merely a social construct used to provide easy and comforting explanations to complex phenomena in the absence of actual evidence or understanding. Any minor similarities between modern scientific knowledge and pre-scientific or anti-scientific mythology, or other assorted flavours of mumbo jumbo, is the result of random probability – throw enough guesses out there, and a few will bear enough of a vague resemblance to some small portion of reality that disingenuous religious apoligists like yourself will be able to pretend that it was all sky fairy inspired supernatural prophecy. It is the exact same scam that the supporters of the so called nos*****mus ‘prophecies’ employ.

I have to say YES YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY WRONG ABOUT THIS. because of the following reasons:

First, in the 7th century Quran says that the universe is expanding: ( for the sake of comprehension this is the untested hypothesis)

Do you or do you not believe that your god created the universe? A single being brought all of reality into existence by means that cannot be explained by purely naturalistic phenomena? Yes or no? If you answer ‘yes’, as you surely must lest you demote your god to being a merely ordinary natural phenomenon no more ‘divine’ (or necessarily even conscious) than plate tectonics, then how is this not to all intents and purposes a feat of magic?

As for the inflation of the universe, as others have noted upthread there were only three options – contraction, expansion or stasis; a lucky guess with a 33.3% chance of accidentally being right does not a divinely inspired prophecy make.

THIS IS NOT THE CASE SORRY!

The well established principle of parsimony is ‘not the case’? How so? I think you left your actual argument at home there, champ. Unsupported assertions, even bolstered with gratuitous ALL CAPS, are not exactly persuasive.

Try again.

THIS IS ALSO NOT THE CASE! because the when someone says there is a Teapot orbiting around the sun between Earth and Mars, he must support his assertion with some prophecies and predictions like the Quran and that prophecies must be as significant and scientific as those in the Quran, plus that he needs that his prophecies must not be out of the existing knowledge at his time also it must be different and antithesis of the existing knowledge also he needs that his prophecies must be scientifically verified after several centuries!

One of the most famous thought experiments in history, that was designed to demonstrate that it is unreasonable to demand that one’s critics prove a negative, rather than the asserting party backing up their own claim with evidence is ‘not the case’? You will really need to try harder there, Kalid.

The Quran’s ‘prophecies’ are neither scientific nor specific – there are general statements that are broad enough to be twisted to fit a particular narrative by people like yourself centuries after the fact. By that logic, we could argue that the vikings must have had a modern understanding of electricity granted to them by the nordic panthoen, because they believed that lightning was the sparks caused by Thor’s hammer striking an anvil, and if you strike certain rocks with a metal object hard enough, ozone is released, and ozone is also sometimes released during lightning storms due to the massive electrical charges leading to local changes in atmospheric composition. I doubt you would be willing to recognise Odin, Thor, Freya, Loki et al as gods based on that evidence, and yet you provide nothing greater to support your claims of the existence of your god.

Here you Russel just asserts that its not fair that the burden of proof must be applied to those who reject some alleged truth, but this is a mere wish, burden of proof must be applied both parties as long as they are opposite parts of the controversy.

The party making an extreme claim obviously has to support their claim with evidence before requiring their critics to provide evidence for their disbelief. Proving a negative is difficult enough when the other side deigns to define their terms clearly; leaving wriggle room to redefine their hypothesis after the fact enables them to dodge all criticism. It is utterly intellectually dishonest.

Think of it this way – what if a person were to argue that, say, vampires actually exist (silly I know, but bear with me). The proponents of the argument claim that these creatures secretly run our society, and are so good at concealing the fact that almost no one knows they exist. There is no physical evidence, because their true nature doesn’t show up on film or any artificial form of recording device – they just appear human. They can shape shift, appearing to possess entirely human physiology and biochemistry under any level of medical or scientific study, even molecular analysis will be fooled. The can influence the minds of most humans, causing witnesses of their attacks to forget what they saw. A few humans have a genetic mutation that allows them to resist this power, but most of those the vampires cannot control they simply kill out of hand and cover the deaths up, and the rest they discredit using their immense wealth, political power and media influence.

The proponents of vampire existence provide no evidence for their claims, since they say that evidence is impossible to come by due to the nature of the undead. They simply require you to believe what they tell you, and respond to anyone who expresses doubts by demanding that the critics must provide hard evidence to prove that the vampires – that they have just established are entirely unfalsifiable – do not exist. If this impossible feat cannot be accomplished, the vampire proponents claim, then belief in vampires as literal supernatural creatures must be accepted. Would that strike you as reasonable? Would you accept the argument that the critics of the vampire hypothesis have a burden of proof to demonstrate the non-existence of creatures that cannot be detected? Would that be fair? Would you consider this a strong enough basis on which to start carrying garlic, holy water, a crucifix, and fire hardened hawthorne, ash or white oak stakes after dark, just in case?

Think on that for a while, and see if you can detect the parallels to claims of the existence of an equally non-falsifiable supernatural deity.

do you think that the absence of the evidence of existence could be at the same moment an evidence of non-existence?

If the answer is yes, Do you clearly see the inconsistency of your logic? two polar opposites can not be one thing.

non-truth cannot at the same moment a truth !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You cannot cite the lack of evidence for your claims as… evidence for your claims. No number of exclamation marks will change that.

Absence of evidence may not be the same things as hard evidence of absence, but it very much more supportive of a hypothesis of absence then it is of one of presence.

Also, you clearly don’t understand what the term ‘polar opposites’ means – the absence of evidence of something’s existence is most certainly not the diametric opposite of evidence of its non-existence.

Did you read my previous comment about the bacteria analogy?

If no please read again and tell if its consistent logic or not?

Yes, I have read it – it was also a steaming pile of arrogant, pretentious word-salad.

The argument from antiquity? Really, that is your answer? Older doesn’t mean better…

Yes older does mean better, here is how:

A goat herder in the midst of the Arabian desert (say if you want a merchant in the desert) talks about some stuff from an expanding universe (where no one in his time have known about those things or they have failed to be right), to human embryonic development (where Aristotle, Galen and all later pseudo-knowledge failed to address how Quran addressed) to the mountains and the concept of isostasy and in last to the fact of the big bang.

All those things Quran addressed before 1435 years ago, yet still today are valid (NOT EVEN WRONG) but only recently in 20th to 21st century scientific method discovers all these things and they match.

It took almost 1400 years for scientists to understand those facts, and now when truth faced you in all of its bitterness you simply claim that all those things where either lucky guess or *NOT EVEN WRONG* or superstition.

That can’t be in anyway intellectually honest because its presupposition and apologetical defense for atheism, you hold in your mind that Allah cannot be exist, and prophecies cannot be from divine origin, and that life must come from pure chance, while you even can not prove exactly the very mechanism of how life began on earth and why its only earth that harbors life.

…Earth is the only place in the universe known to harbor life. Nonetheless, the exact steps in the abiogenesis process, whether occurring on Earth or elsewhere, remain unknown.

Wikipedia

, if it did, we would still believe that the Earth was flat….

First, as i said earlier, Quran never uses the word *tilt* and never refers to anything flat, here is the verse:

And He has set firm mountains in the earth so that it would not shake with you… [Noble Quran 16:15]

There is also the fact that neither your religion, the earlier religions it is based upon, or the scientific method were ‘revealed’. The scientific method was developed as a means of accruing evidence about the universe around us and how it functions while avoiding cognitive misfires, presuppositions, or other forms of bias.

Yes Islam is a method to know reality and to understand life and truth, it gives general idea of the truth about knowledge, although not very and deeply specific but its specific enough to be able to judge scientifically if its right or wrong.

Its clear but if you don’t like that, (do what you like to do), say its guess or superstition but the fact is that you can’t deny it and you can’t even scientifically refute it, say *ITS NOT EVEN WRONG*.

Religion is merely a social construct used to provide easy and comforting explanations to complex phenomena in the absence of actual evidence or understanding.

And add that it explained human embryology where Aristotle and Galen got wrong, also add that it explained an expanding universe when Hubble space telescope was about after 1400 years later, plus the big bang (say it was chance, its your only way to support your presuppositional logic) .

What is weird is that you assert that all those prophecies are by lucky guesses once again you say they are too vague once again say superstition, you hold all those perceptions and you can’t prove it, can you?

I mean damn! even if all of those are lucky chance, then the Quran must be so lucky so much so its from divine origin.

Any minor similarities between modern scientific knowledge and pre-scientific or anti-scientific mythology, or other assorted flavours of mumbo jumbo, is the result of random probability – throw enough guesses out there, and a few will bear enough of a vague resemblance to some small portion of reality

Let me ask you this question:

How could you come to the conclusion that the prophecy about the expanding universe is not anything but mere lucky guess? You rely on evidence how can you judge between if its come from a divine origin or lucky guess?

Isn’t this is a presupposition? a judge cannot judge without enough evidence, but if he presupposes or pre-assumes then can judge what ever he want no matter what evidence presented to him ( in this case no matter what valid prophecies presented to you).

This is called *BIAS*.

Do you or do you not believe that your god created the universe? A single being brought all of reality into existence by means that cannot be explained by purely naturalistic phenomena?

Yes…….. but wait….. what have you just said?

A single being brought all of reality into existence by means that cannot be explained by purely naturalistic phenomena?

Created by means that cannot be explained in a purely naturalistic phenomena…..!

Here you presuppose that naturalism and determinism must be true, so every explanation of the origin of life must be presupposed that its naturalistic and by chance, do you know what…?

How can you assert that the origin of life was by chance and a naturalistic phenomenon while you can’t even explain the basic mechanism of abiogenesis?

You believe all those thing faithfully but what i am different from you is that the prophecies that i used to believe in more than 1400 years (not literally but metaphorically) are scientifically accurate (although to defend atheism one may need to claim that those prophecies are lucky guess or *NOT EVEN WRONG*) but you claim that life was emerged from non-life by chance, then you can’t explain how or why anywhere other than earth life can’t be found.

then how is this not to all intents and purposes a feat of magic?

Its about long time ago when Abraham began to preach Allah’s word and even at that time atheism rejected it using the same soup of words from superstition to magic, their is a saying that history repeats itself everyday so today is another chapter of those days when the inconsistent logic confronts with undeniable facts, it turns in to disinformation and baseless assertions that truth is a superstition or magic and today they like to use *NOT EVEN WRONG*, look they know its no a superstition but in order to blindly defend the inconsistent logic they prefer to play that hopeless game.

Finally, a prediction that the universe is expanding cannot be a superstition nor a guess, if its a guess and embryonic development is guess and the big bang is guess, then it must turn into divine original.

As for the inflation of the universe, as others have noted upthread there were only three options – contraction, expansion or stasis; a lucky guess with a 33.3% chance of accidentally being right does not a divinely inspired prophecy make.

One of the most famous thought experiments in history, that was designed to demonstrate that it is unreasonable to demand that one’s critics prove a negative, rather than the asserting party backing up their own claim with evidence is ‘not the case’? You will really need to try harder there, Kalid.

Its not a negative, if you don’t have evidence how would you judge if its a negative or not? I have

But you to prove this you have only to say its guess (how do you know that?) or * NOT EVEN WRONG*

Also you don’t know how the alleged abiogenisis work, nor how life can began without a protein or how protein would began without other proteins or how other proteins could began without cell nucleus with all of his organelles?

we could argue that the vikings must have had a modern understanding of electricity granted to them by the nordic panthoen, because they believed that lightning was the sparks caused by Thor’s hammer striking an anvil, and if you strike certain rocks with a metal object hard enough, ozone is released, and ozone is also sometimes released during lightning storms due to the massive electrical charges leading to local changes in atmospheric composition. I doubt you would be willing to recognise Odin, Thor, Freya, Loki et al as gods based on that evidence, and yet you provide nothing greater to support your claims of the existence of your god.

If honest those two apologies are incomparable, those prophesies are not about simple observable things, if they were like that Aristotle, Galen and all other pseudos would have been right.

This is no more then a pre-determined judgment and bias.

If this impossible feat cannot be accomplished, the vampire proponents claim, then belief in vampires as literal supernatural creatures must be accepted. Would that strike you as reasonable? Would you accept the argument that the critics of the vampire hypothesis have a burden of proof to demonstrate the non-existence of creatures that cannot be detected? Would that be fair? Would you consider this a strong enough basis on which to start carrying garlic,

If Islam would have been similar to your vampire myth one fourth of humanity wouldn’t have committed it as their believe and way of life, its not like that. it talks about a universe which is expanding and other prophecies which are scientifically accurate *NOT WRONG* does vampires do that?

You cannot cite the lack of evidence for your claims as… evidence for your claims. No number of exclamation marks will change that.

Absence of evidence may not be the same things as hard evidence of absence, but it very much more supportive of a hypothesis of absence then it is of one of presence.

Then you shouldn’t say Allah doesn’t while you can’t prove that! anyway:

Simply tell me how Where does bacteria used to live before the microscope? the non-existence was in your mind and after the microscope its came in to reality? answer this question.

Kalid, still not one link to the solid and conclusive physical evidence for your imaginry deity, so everything you bullshitted in #332 is theological fuckwittery, without a trace of SCIENCE. It is dismissed as theology bullshititng. Try again, but provide the evidence for your imaginary deity, or by your lack of answer, show your honesty and integrity on that critical matter….

to human embryonic development (where Aristotle, Galen and all later pseudo-knowledge failed to address how Quran addressed)

Aristotle and Galen address it in hundreds of pages, the Koran addresses vaguely, maybe, in two sentences. And still gets it wrong.
Fail three.

and in last to the fact of the big bang.

Big Bang is not a merged Heaven and Earth becoming disconnected.
Fail four.

All those things Quran addressed before 1435 years ago, yet still today are valid (NOT EVEN WRONG)

Still don’t know what “Not even wrong” means even though we have explained a few dozen times.
Fail five.

It took almost 1400 years for scientists to understand those facts, and now when truth faced you in all of its bitterness you simply claim that all those things where either lucky guess or *NOT EVEN WRONG* or superstition.

You still don’t understand how bad prophecies work.
Fail six.

That can’t be in anyway intellectually honest because its presupposition and apologetical defense for atheism, you hold in your mind that Allah cannot be exist, and prophecies cannot be from divine origin,

Projection and failure to understand tentative positions and burden of proof.
Fail seven.

and that life must come from pure chance, while you even can not prove exactly the very mechanism of how life began on earth

Nonetheless, the exact steps in the abiogenesis process, whether occurring on Earth or elsewhere, remain unknown.

Irrelevant to the fact that it is fair more plausible, given what we know about chemistry, and parsiminious, given what we don’t know about magical space men.
Fail ten.

Yes Islam is a method to know reality and to understand life and truth, it gives general idea of the truth about knowledge, although not very and deeply specific but its specific enough to be able to judge scientifically if its right or wrong.

Reading a book of “facts” is not a method.
Fail eleven.

What is weird is that you assert that all those prophecies are by lucky guesses once again you say they are too vague once again say superstition, you hold all those perceptions and you can’t prove it, can you?

You would think that the person claiming they are clearly prophetic would have the burden of showing how they AREN’T just lucky guesses or overly vague such that you could read any interpretation into them. Or that you aren’t putting too much enthusiasm into random verses and ignoring all of the intended prophecies or statement of facts that don’t add up.

I mean damn! even if all of those are lucky chance, then the Quran must be so lucky so much so its from divine origin.

Master of logic believes luck is proof of deities.
Fail twelve.

You rely on evidence how can you judge between if its come from a divine origin or lucky guess?

The problem of being unable to logically infer gods from “prophecy” is the problem of the supernaturalists, not the skeptics. At very least, try to rely on GOOD prophecies. Then maybe we could talk.

Fail thirteen.

a judge cannot judge without enough evidence, but if he presupposes or pre-assumes then can judge what ever he want no matter what evidence presented to him ( in this case no matter what valid prophecies presented to you).

This is called *BIAS*.

Blatant hypocrisy is blatant.
Fail fourteen.

Here you presuppose that naturalism and determinism must be true, so every explanation of the origin of life must be presupposed that its naturalistic and by chance, do you know what…?

We don’t presuppose naturalism. We, again, tentatively accept naturalism. Because there is no good reason to believe in supernaturalism. Why do you presuppose that supernaturalism exists?

Fail fifteen.

it turns in to disinformation and baseless assertions that truth is a superstition or magic and today they like to use *NOT EVEN WRONG*, look they know its no a superstition but in order to blindly defend the inconsistent logic they prefer to play that hopeless game.

If it were disinformation or baseless or illogical, you could prove us wrong. But you haven’t. You have only proven yourself wrong.

Fail sixteen.

Finally, a prediction that the universe is expanding cannot be a superstition nor a guess, if its a guess and embryonic development is guess and the big bang is guess, then it must turn into divine original.

Does not come anywhere near resembling a logical statement. It is barely even coherent.

One approach that I like to use in discussions like this, it to try to dig down to the core disagreement.

In this case, kalid is working off a few unstated assumptions. The reason we find ourselves at odds is that we disagree on these points, and since they’re unstated, they go largely untouched by the discussion. As a result, we’re not really getting anywhere.

One example I’ve touched on earlier: The assumption that the Qur’an is a unitary text with no disagreement. Obviously, this is not a premise that kalid has stated, nor attempted to defend, but nonetheless, his arguments relating to scriptural support entirely rely on it. Without that premise, the argument simply makes no sense.

Of course, even if we accept that the Qur’an is entirely by one author (something I’m not actually willing to conclusively grant), the various surahs were spoken over the course of years. It’s not unreasonable to think that Muhammad might have gotten things mixed up or changed his mind during that period.

So, this cannot be used as a premise without evidence. You can’t just assume it to be true.

This attitude obviously derives from the fact that his assertion of divine inspiration isn’t actually a conclusion at all; it’s also a premise. He starts by asserting that the text has a divine origin, from that he concludes that it must be correct and therefore any interpretation that doesn’t fit science must be ruled out.

On several occasions he has come very close to explicitly making this argument. E.g. #208:

So, there is nowhere in the Quran which referes the sperm or the leech-like, or the lamp of flesh stages as Homunculus. look, its so absurd its the logic of *Preformationism* which is scientifically invalid.

Surely, whether it’s scientifically valid is not relevant to the question of whether the Qur’an says is… unless you have a presupposition that the Qur’an must be in agreement with science.

Finally, there’s the consistent idea that the verses are more accurate than they really are; that what the text says is amazingly precise, to a supernatural degree. for that, I don’t know what to say. To my mind, it’s patently obvious that the text just doesn’t say what kalid wants it to.

He’s reading into the text to a remarkable degree and never notices that what he’s saying isn’t actually in there. He keeps confusing a possible interpretation of the text for the actual content of the text.

So, I think we should rally abandon the discussion of the text itself, for the time being. Instead, we should focus on these basic assumptions. Only once we’ve settled that can we profitably move on to the text itself.

With that in mind, kalid:

1) Do you agree that the Qur’an could (as in, it’s an open question for discussion) contain contradictions and that any assertion that it doesn’t must be supported by evidence?

2) Do you agree that the Qur’an could (same as above) be in contradiction with science and that any assertion that it isn’t must be supported by evidence?

3) Will you agree to separate your arguments formally into two points:
a) what the text* says (the plain reading)
b) what you think the text* means
by which I mean that you will actually separate the text of your posts into two separate blocks, one for each point. Will you agree to that?

* And, again, by “the text”, I mean each text in question, not the full Qur’an text. Each surah must be read for itself. Connections to other surahs are part of the interpretation.

-Evolution is a lie because it doesn’t match up with kalid’s holy book.
-Logic means whatever kalid wants it mean.
-Burden of proof is on the person who isn’t holding the Koran
-Postdiction is a perfectly cromulent method of prophecizing (for Islam only)
-WHAT DOES NOT EVEN WRONG MEAN ARGGGHH MY BRAIN!!!!1!1!

Also you don’t know how the alleged abiogenisis work, nor how life can began without a protein or how protein would began without other proteins or how other proteins could began without cell nucleus with all of his organelles?

Actually, the ability of RNA to act as a catalyst is well demonstrated. Proteins simply aren’t the only way to do this. Neither is the nucleus an absolute requirement, nor any other organelles, as demonstrated by existing cells that work quite fine without any of these.

Understand? There are molecules and cells existing right now that are doing what you claim to be impossible.

@anteprepro
Well, one step at a time, you know. I think the steps I outlined might be a constructive approach, if kalid is willing to engage with it. I’m not really holding my breath, but we can always hope.

It’s not unreasonable to think that Muhammad might have gotten things mixed up or changed his mind during that period.

*snicker* Just look at the progression of the prohibition alcoholic beverages. Three stages if what cultural Muslims of my acquaintance have reported to me. Show the divine revelation in such a progression, or shut the fuck up…..

Planted a seed alright, can’t wait to see one of his new slogans hit the Internet mainstream.

I’m still waiting to hear what Aristotle & Galen supposed got wrong that the Quran got right. Because it doesn’t appear to me that the Quran got much of anything right…Maybe I should finish reading upthread, but the willful ignorance burns so much.

Simply tell me how Where does bacteria used to live before the microscope? the non-existence was in your mind and after the microscope its came in to reality? answer this question.

Now, see, if there was a creator god, it would be entirely possible that there were no bacteria before the invention of the microscope. Before that, diseases would have been caused by demons, rot was caused by sin, and beer was brewed by faith—just like people believed. Then, just before the microscope, the god created bacteria tailored to all those things, retired the demons, and giggled inscrutably.

That’s a form of Last-Tuesdayism, by the way, which is the idea that the universe and everything was just created, all running with memories and evidence of age. There’s a name for progressive creation, but I can’t recall it.

Anyhow, my point is that with gods and the supernatural, all bets are off and logic goes out the window. A capricious boy god could just be messing with us, lying to us, and deceiving us for the lulz.

Simply tell me how Where does bacteria used to live before the microscope? the non-existence was in your mind and after the microscope its came in to reality? answer this question.

Kalid, before the microscope, bacteria existed just like they do today. People just didn’t know about them.

Nobody was making it a matter of faith that bacteria did not exist. Nobody thought about it, nobody cared.

Some people may have speculated, some folks may have told them they were wrong. Much of the doubt about bacteria came from superstitious people, from religious people and from conservatives.

It is funny, Kalid, that you bring up bacteria and the discovery of them, while holding anti-science attitudes just like those that let bacteria kill lots of people. As I said earlier, much of what bacteria did to people back when, was considered to be supernatural and spookiness. Half of your religion is propped up by the ancient ignorance of bacteria.

Kalid, you are trying to get us to say that we would have been adamantly opposed to the idea of bacteria, through ignorance, so that you can say that we should be more open-minded about Allah.

Well, as I said, bacteria make sense. There are lots of animals almost too small to see, some of which live inside us. Saying that there are some even smaller, even more numerous, isn’t a revolution in thought. It makes so much sense that only a stubborn, superstitious person would have denied the possibility, but a wise person would have wanted more evidence.

The evidence for bacteria was strong. Rot and disease, yeast and mold, water-borne fluxes all could have been seen as bacterial, had anyone thought. The man who proved that yeast on the outside of grapes was responsible for fermentation was able to demonstrate that before microscopes.

Again, the stubborn mindset that you, Kalid, are trying to accuse us of is a very religious one. You have it, and you are projecting your shortcomings onto us. That is wrong, Kalid, and very rude.

Now, we don’t know everything, and we know that we don’t know everything. We do know that we have no reason to think that Allah exists, except that you, Kalid, say so. We do have good reason to think that you are incapable of good judgement, Kalid, and that your opinion is worth nothing. We also have good reason to think that every other religious person is wrong, and that every religion, including yours, is wrong.

You dismiss all other religions but yours, we dismiss them all. Because of you.

So, no, we aren’t blindly closing our minds against Allah. You are the one with the closed mind.

When the graduates of the geology course of the University of *mumble*, class of *man, that was the year that* (amongst which number I count myself) organise their *sheesh, how long?*-ieth reunion¹ I am so going to take along copies of kalid’s #312:

We understand that mountains take part in stabilizing earth’s crust by casting from the underneath to the top of earth’s crust do to the tectonic plates. Mountains have deep roots, because they have thick crust they float on the mantle and exert gravitational pressure to the mantle, since they are not moving they are in equilibrium, that means the upward forces are equal and opposite downward forces, as they have thick crust they are firm and prevent frequent movements of the mantle, in that way they prevent continues shaking and non-stop earthquake. ( although not all earthquakes but but they reduce the effect of the moving mantle by absorbing the force acted on them underneath)

For example you see how ships and boats float, its somehow the same they use whats called buoyancy which is the downward force gravitational force is applied to upward force (due to difference in density the floating object won’t sink) The more weight and mass of the floating object increases the more its stability increase.

… and we will laugh heartily, and then drink heavily to erase the stupid.

As we know all of the earths crust is floating so if there were no mountains the crust will be thin and then unstable, because of the moving mantle underneath.

Dude, 70% of the Earth’s crust is oceanic–thin!–and yet seismically stable (mid-ocean ridges excepted, but they’re just lines in big areas). And the crust moves over the mantle not the mantle below the crust — look up the Hawaii island chain for an example. Oh, and the crust around the Hawaii mountain range is higher than away from it, not being weighed down or some such.

I mean, I guess you could argue that subduction zone trenches were anti-mountains and hence show intense seismic activity (which they do!), but I’d want an “I have placed great valleys in the deeps of the ocean to shake you” to convince me it was scripturally prophecised.

—

¹ The most probable location will be a pub/hotel somewhere in the Peak District, because it’s central. Those of us who ended up in Houston, Lagos, or Strezhevoy will complain that it’s “not central for me” but screw them. They’re getting the big money.

The weather will be glorious right up until the first person shows up, after which it will piss down like it’s February in Scarborough. Any graptolite fossils found will turn out to have to be drawn on pieces of slate with a 2B pencil (a surprisingly convincing method of paleontological forgery). We will be bitten by horseflies the size of small dogs, which have been mutated by the the prevailing influence of Carboniferous carcinogens. Someone will fall in a river. Someone else will be pushed in.

Everyone will end up with sheep shit on their clothes, even those who never leave the pub/hotel. It’s Derbyshire, for God’s sake; it’s everywhere.

@Kalid
Does it not trouble you that the only way you can say with certainty that we are living in an expanding universe, is that Science says it is so, and demonstrates that it is so. You claim the “prophesy” (or your understanding of the term) is proved to be correct because of Science and not by way of your belief. Why is Science the final arbiter as to whether Mohammad (PBUH¹) was talking shit or not? I suspect that the Koran is actually quite redundant in all of this.

If Islam would have been similar to your vampire myth one fourth of humanity wouldn’t have committed it as their believe and way of life, its not like that.

Okaaay… so if I can get a few million people to believe in my Imaginary Cat ™ , it will suddenly become real?

You have not answered my #280: How is your rejection of my Imaginary Cat ™ any different from my rejection of your Imaginary Deity? (This is not a trivial question. At least not for you, given your expressed world view.)

…

¹ PBUH = Possible But Unlikely Historicity.
Kalid, perhaps you should study your own religious history before waxing lyrical about the Koran. (And I don’t mean the “hadith”.) There are many reasons why the Koran is so confused, and internally contradictory. It is not surprising that Islamists refuse to take an honest look at their own history. It undermines their arguments, and their overly tidy narratives, at every turn.

@ chigau

How much longer can this go on?

As a high ranking Politburo member of the longest running breakaway republic endless thread you ask this?

So why did Mohammad put that “prophecy” about the expanding universe in the Quran, then? I mean, nobody knew about the scientific accuracy of it for 1400 years. What good was it doing to everybody who had to memorize it and argue about it?

It’s kind of like bacteria before anybody believed in them. Did they exist? Did that verse’s meaning really exist? Or was it meaningless? Answer that, Kalid.

The verse could have been put in there to impress the scientists who discovered the expanding universe, and who should have been overwhelmed by the realization that Mohammad had picked the right option out of the three possible. But you can see how well that’s going over here on this science blog.

So what’s it for, Kalid? Is it just there to impress the current crop of gullibles? A 1400-year pain to memorize and confusion to analyze just to rope in a few more rubes?

That’s a form of Last-Tuesdayism, by the way, which is the idea that the universe and everything was just created, all running with memories and evidence of age. There’s a name for progressive creation, but I can’t recall it.

For its dramatic failure to make proper use of probability and general mathematic illiteracy. Any mathematician, statistician, economist or anyone else who works with numbers who reads that will probably find that their eyes will start spontaneously bleeding. It should carry a public health notice.

Also, you are failing at the concept of logical progression again; even if these predictions had been as specific as you claim (they aren’t), and had been entirely accurate (again, they aren’t even close), a prediction does not imply a prophecy, nor divinity, nor any specific deity in particular. Even if we conceded all those points to you just out of some masochistic desire to indulge your delusions, you would still have a mountain to climb before you could begin to claim that any god, still less allah specifically, exists.

Then there is this beauty;

Also you don’t know how the alleged abiogenisis work, nor how life can began without a protein or how protein would began without other proteins or how other proteins could began without cell nucleus with all of his organelles?

The fact that most theories of abiogenisis include naturally occuring amino acids forming protein chains, and the fact that there are already known cell types with biological processes that do not require cell organelles, makes your argument from ignorance amusingly self-defeating.

To finish off, we have perhaps the single greatest feat of point-missing I have ever encountered;

If Islam would have been similar to your vampire myth one fourth of humanity wouldn’t have committed it as their believe and way of life, its not like that. it talks about a universe which is expanding and other prophecies which are scientifically accurate *NOT WRONG* does vampires do that?

By commiting yourself to the argumentum ad populam you do realise that you have just asserted that reality is effectively subject to popular ratification, right? By your logic, when the vast majority of humanity believed that the earth was flat, and if you sailed too far you would fall off the edge, then the earth was indeed flat, only contorting into a rough sphere later in order to conform to the new consensus.

Even better, you have effectively committed to a position where, if enough people were to come to believe it, my reductio ad absurdam would somehow become real.

As for prophecies, as anteprepro says @ 335, one of the leading theories about how the vampire myth came into existence was as a folkloric explanation for the condition now known as porphyria, whose symptoms can include a biological sensitivity to light so extreme that exposure to sun light can cause the skin to split. That is as much a prophecy as anything in the Quran, and yet no one here is arguing that vampires actually exist or that the vampire myth has a divine origin.

Best of all though, if the only thing separating myth from reality is the number of people who believe in something, that implies that if enough people leave a given religion then that religion’s god(s) will ‘die’, or at least cease to exist. The logical implication is that if sufficiently few people observe islam, then it is tickets for allah. So much for an omnipotent being…

Given the recent declines in religious observance in many parts of the world, perhaps allah should be checking his life insurance? I remind you that once upon a time Ra commanded a greater relative proportion of humanity’s population as devotees than allah ever has, and did so in a region of the world that is now one of the heartlands of islam. Mithras once had vast numbers of followers, as did zeus, Jupiter and Odin and Huitzilopochtli. Where are their followers and temples now? If all those religions can rise and fall, and if the ubiquity of a particular belief is the only determinant factor, then the future is not looking good for any of the contemporary god myths.

Actually, the ability of RNA to act as a catalyst is well demonstrated. Proteins simply aren’t the only way to do this. Neither is the nucleus an absolute requirement, nor any other organelles, as demonstrated by existing cells that work quite fine without any of these.

Well and you would say that RNA come first by chance, any way the big question is how the self-replicating RNA first decided to replicate, under what kind of situation and mechanism it used to produce protein?

Does the RNA world hypothesis is a wishful imagination or we can test it in an experiment? (I mean what was environment or the mechanism that a simple sugar-nucleobase molecule could have formed from prebiotic reactions on early Earth)?

ell and you would say that RNA come first by chance, any way the big question is how the self-replicating RNA first decided to replicate, under what kind of situation and mechanism it used to produce protein?

I wasn’t by your imaginary and unevidenced deity. Actually, RNA replication has been shown in the laboratory, for example here. No need to invoke phantasms. Note the citation to the scientific literature, not your book of mythology.

LykeX, you forgot further unstated differences of opinion:
-Evolution is a lie because it doesn’t match up with kalid’s holy book.
-Logic means whatever kalid wants it mean.
-Burden of proof is on the person who isn’t holding the Koran.

1. Micro-evolution is undeniable fact:

As the Haddith says: Adam was a giant very tall almost 30 meters height also the prophet said that our first ancestors were physically different from later generations; this is the horizontal gene transfer, this mean we had evolved, and this mechanism of adaptation is in part of Allah’s design.

Similarity in DNA between humans and any other animal is representing only a similarity but in no way it could be a prove for Macro-evolution from one gulf of species in to another.

A broken vitamin c gene in the same place within different species is just like similarity that all animals have genes, have cells and some of them may share similar characteristics but is can’t a prove of any macro-evolution or speciation.

2. Logic means the use of valid reasoning and being rational not delusional.

3. Burden of proof is applicable with both sides in an controversy; for example if two persons argue whether bacteria exists or not both parties must prove their hypothesis, the person that asserts that bacteria does exist must come up with some evidence the person that rejects and denies the existence of the bacteria must also come up with some evidence that bacteria does not exist.

If both sides fail to prove anything the reason is lack of knowledge so unless bacteria is proved or disproved the valid logic not to rule out the probability that bacteria could exist, if someone reject the existence of bacteria due to lack of evidence and also rule out the probability then he is logically inconsistent and delusional because if bacteria suddenly discovered then his hypothesis becomes false (THAT IS CALLED DELUSION) holding false believes.

One approach that I like to use in discussions like this, it to try to dig down to the core disagreement.

Well, that is good step forward, this represents when intellectuality plus good thinking are working together through the endless human attempt to acquire and digest knowledge in order to make his understanding of the truth better and eliminate any logical inconsistencies through rationality living in reality.

I appreciate this approach and yes it’s a constructive approach.

In this case, kalid is working off a few unstated assumptions. The reason we find ourselves at odds is that we disagree on these points, and since they’re unstated, they go largely untouched by the discussion. As a result, we’re not really getting anywhere.

I agree, you are absolutely right, although it’s not the only reason that we find ourselves at odds given that may be there are hidden presuppositions and hidden logical inertia.

One example I’ve touched on earlier: The assumption that the Qur’an is a unitary text with no disagreement. Obviously, this is not a premise that kalid has stated, nor attempted to defend, but nonetheless, his arguments relating to scriptural support entirely rely on it. Without that premise, the argument simply makes no sense.

Even if we discuss those premises the argument is still solid and reasonable, anyway it’s not as you think it could be.

Of course, even if we accept that the Qur’an is entirely by one author (something I’m not actually willing to conclusively grant), the various surah’s were spoken over the course of years. It’s not unreasonable to think that Muhammad might have gotten things mixed up or changed his mind during that period.

The process of Quran revelation took almost 23 years timeline, Quran never come in to earth as one package but it took a long period of little by little verse by verse, also Quran is divided in to two main parts which are ( Nasekh and Mansokh) in English outdated verses and updated ones ( they are almost in 43 Surah’s/ chapters scattered through the Quran), and that was not in any way a contradiction as you may think it’s, but its deeply related to the approach that Allah chose for Mohamed to preach his message.

This gradual approach was chosen by Allah, because Quran was intended by Allah not only as a book for recitation but a whole way of life it was intended as complete practical real system so that its audience could internalize, understand and digest in a step by step practical way.

Allah says:

“And those who disbelieve say, “Why was the Qur’an not revealed to him all at once?” Thus [it is] that We may strengthen thereby your heart. And We have spaced it distinctly (recited it with distinct recitation).” (Quran 77: 32)

Here, the verse metaphorically talks to Mohamed but also it’s general for all of the Quran audience, and the reason is to internalize and deeply understand its meanings in an active and practical way rather than a passive and boring way.

Here the approach that Quran was revealed is different from the approaches that God used to reveal in older books like the Bible and the Torah which God revealed them in one package.

As you know before Islam Arabs were desert dwellers who used to live in a hard and difficult environment, they were divided into tribes and war, robbery and barbarism was the major theme in the desert, Allah understood the very nature of his creatures and the best way to change this barbaric society which is step by step gradual practice of the major tenets of Quran.

Quran talks about so many different things from history, science, life, knowledge, sociology, business law, economics, governance, international relations, and so many other things.

Those updated parts within Quran that are changed in the course of revelation are only limited to the practical issues that deal with prohibitions, relations, governance, social and economic practical issues, and the reason is to gradually train and teach those people in a gradual manner.

Quran was revealed gradually and came when the need for guidance arose, without discouraging or lowering the morale of the audience, warning and teaching the negative consequences of the prohibitions preceded the actual command of prohibition and exhortation preceded the actual command.

This attitude obviously derives from the fact that his assertion of divine inspiration isn’t actually a conclusion at all; it’s also a premise. He starts by asserting that the text has a divine origin, from that he concludes that it must be correct and therefore any interpretation that doesn’t fit science must be ruled out.

You never got my point; here is the structure of my argument:

Here are my premises:

1. Quran as a whole is not only a science book. (Premise)

2. Some Qur’anic verses address science related issues. (Premise)

3. Those Qur’anic verses that address science can be tested. (Premise)

4. Some Qur’anic verses are literal some others are metaphors. (Premise)

5. Metaphorical verses cannot be tested scientifically because they are not literal. (Premise)

6. The knowledge in the Quran can be historically tested. (Premise)

7. Every testable issue in the Quran must be analyzed within the context that it’s addressing and not any interpretation out of the context. (Premise)

8. Quran verses that address science must not be addressed individually but since those verses that address the issue are scattered in within the book they must be related and analyzed collectively. (Premise)

9. The specificity of Qur’anic verses that address science is limited but not vague enough to be scientifically irrelevant and untestable. (Premise)

10. Every possible or alternative interpretation must be put in the related context also it must be linguistically relevant to the topic, also it must. (Premise)

11. Every possible or alternative interpretation must be supported evidence within the text. (Premise)

12. Mere assertions without supporting evidence are not applicable. (Premise)

13. If several tested prophesies are verified other untestable parts of the book must be true.

Here is the conclusion of my argument:

Those Qur’anic verses that address science related issues, after we test them scientifically if the resulted outcome verified their correctness or ( for comprehension if the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is proven) then they are verified prophecies.

If the prophecies also survive the historical test, when compared with the existing knowledge at that time then they are also true prophecies.

All those verified prophecies are then from divine origin so the rest untestable contents of the book are true and every warning and promise its true, like the eternal damnation or the eternal enjoyment.

Then so Islam is really a true religion and rational humans are ought to accept it otherwise they must take the responsibility of their choice and expect future consequences of their choice.

Surely, whether it’s scientifically valid is not relevant to the question of whether the Qur’an says is… unless you have a presupposition that the Qur’an must be in agreement with science.

No, as I stated in my premises science in the Quran can be tested and those verses that address embryonic development can be tested because they are explaining testable physical characteristics, I don’t presuppose but let’s test it, is that wrong?

finally, there’s the consistent idea that the verses are more accurate than they really are; that what the text says is amazingly precise, to a supernatural degree. For that, I don’t know what to say. To my mind, it’s patently obvious that the text just doesn’t say what kalid wants it to.

No I don’t insist that the verses are very specific but what I insist is that is an enough level of specificity so they can be tested scientifically because they are:

1. Addressing science related issues.

2. They are explaining physical characteristics or other testable characteristics.

3. They are explaining and giving clear and final judgments of the truth about those things that they are describing.

To my mind, it’s patently obvious that the text just doesn’t say what kalid wants it to.

I don’t want anything other than honest, intellectual and scientific debate; if my argument fails I am ready to accept that so if your argument fails you also have to accept that because we ought to be honest.

He’s reading into the text to a remarkable degree and never notices that what he’s saying isn’t actually in there. He keeps confusing a possible interpretation of the text for the actual content of the text.

No I admit that the text is not very detailed but also I admit that when we put it in its context and test it with the discovered knowledge of our time it can be judged.

1) Do you agree that the Qur’an could (as in, it’s an open question for discussion) contain contradictions and that any assertion that it doesn’t must be supported by evidence?

I will take that Quran cannot contain contradictions as a null hypothesis so any assertion that Quran contains inherent contradictions must be supported with evidence otherwise we have to accept the null hypothesis.

2) Do you agree that the Qur’an could (same as above) be in contradiction with science and that any assertion that it isn’t must be supported by evidence?

I will take that Quran is not contradicted with science as a null hypothesis and any assertions that it contains must be supported with valid evidence.

3) Will you agree to separate your arguments formally into two points:
a) what the text* says (the plain reading)
b) what you think the text* means.

Yes I agree with you, that is why I said we have to test it; any alternative explanation must be supported with evidence from the text, it must be put in its original context, it must be related with other parts of the same text.

by which I mean that you will actually separate the text of your posts into two separate blocks, one for each point. Will you agree to that?

I don’t agree to separate the text, the text that addresses in one science related issue is scattered within the whole book so it must be put together an analyzed together because they are related.

* And, again, by “the text”, I mean each text in question, not the full Qur’an text. Each surah must be read for itself. Connections to other surahs are part of the interpretation.

That is what you like but we need to discuss the whole issue in general since they are related not partial anlayzes that could mean some structural bias in the evaluation process.

Well and you would say that RNA come first by chance, any way the big question is how the self-replicating RNA first decided to replicate, under what kind of situation and mechanism it used to produce protein?

That is indeed a question, but not one that forces us to conclude that a god did it. Not even if we don’t yet know the specifics. So far, research in this area has been consistently advancing for years, so there’s every reason to think that we’ll eventually figure out how it happened.

Adam was a giant very tall almost 30 meters height also the prophet said that our first ancestors were physically different from later generations; this is the horizontal gene transfer

You’re saying that human beings can engage in transfer of genes without reproduction? I think I’d like to see some evidence for that.

Similarity in DNA between humans and any other animal is representing only a similarity but in no way it could be a prove for Macro-evolution from one gulf of species in to another.

Bullshit. For example, the cytochrome c protein in humans and chimps is identical, even thought we know that significant differences are possible without any functional loss. Common ancestry explains this fact; creation doesn’t.
On top of that, this is not the only example of this.

A broken vitamin c gene in the same place within different species is just like similarity that all animals have genes…

In an odd way, you’re right. The fact that all life we know uses the same genetic code is indeed evidence of a common ancestry (I know that’s not what you meant, but what you meant is such transparent toss, it’s really not worth discussing).

Fact is that without common ancestry, you have no way of explaining why different forms of life share these characteristics. Cells is probably a bit too general to be taken in this way, but the amazing similarity of all the structures within cells certainly constitute such evidence.

Here’s the facts: When you construct phylogenetic trees based on a variety of genes, you find that they all line up. We might accept that one gene could show this relationship, but it’s not just one. It’s so many that I don’t even care to guess at the number. And they all line up with the trees based on anatomy. And the match what you expect from the fossil record.

For all this to be simply coincidence, it would be a stroke of luck big enough to rip the fabric of reality. So, if you insists on creation, there’s really only one other option: God is lying; God is making life look like it has evolve in a deliberately attempt to lead us astray.

If you accept that idea, obviously, you have to ask some hard questions about whether we can really trust him on anything. That would basically make your precious Qur’an worth as much as used toilet paper.

Burden of proof is applicable with both sides in an controversy; for example if two persons argue whether bacteria exists or not both parties must prove their hypothesis…

Sort of, but what you’re saying isn’t applicable to this case, for these reasons:

…the person that asserts that bacteria does exist must come up with some evidence the person that rejects and denies the existence of the bacteria must also come up with some evidence that bacteria does not exist.

This is the crucial point. If you actively assert that bacteria don’t exist, you’re right, that requires evidence. However, if you simply reject the positive claim that bacteria do exist, on the basis of lacking evidnce, you don’t nee dot prove anything.

This is what Ockham’s Razor is all about. Absent conclusive evidence, you always assume the simplest conclusion. If you don’t have evidence one way or the other concerning bacteria, the rational conclusion is to assume they don’t exist, until evidence surfaces to change the situation.

To illustrate, I’ll claim that, at this very moment, there’s an invisible pixies sitting on your shoulder playing the bongos. I can’t offer any evidence for this claim, but you can’t offer any evidence to disprove it (keeping in mind that the pixies is also immaterial and the bongos are magically silent).

Do you accept the existence of this bongo-playing pixie? If not, why not?
Answer that and you’ll understand where we’re coming from.

Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaidensays

So anteprepro in #337 got it exactly right with number 1: You accept evolution to the extent that it is in your holy books, and reject it, regardless of actual physical evidence, to the extent that you believe it isn’t in your holy books and/or contradicts your holy books. The only equivocation is that anteprepro mentioned the Koran where you rely at least in part on ahadith.

#2? Since you use “delusional” to mean “believes something that conflicts with the Koran or sunnah/ahadith” and since you make yourself arbiter of the meaning of the Koran and sunnah/ahadith” anteprepro is correct here, too.

#3 You are doing complete violence to the term “burden of proof”. One wouldn’t speak of a burden of proof if it rested with all sides in a debate equally. Your confusion is that you are assuming that each “side” has an hypothesis.

In fact, the burden of proof applies only **one single hypothesis at a time**. If you are proposing that bacteria exist, the burden is upon you to prove it. Others don’t have any logical, epistemological, rational, or practical requirement to believe that bacteria exist without proof.

If you are proposing that bacteria do NOT exist, the burden is upon you to prove it. Others don’t have any logical, epistemological, rational, or practical requirement to believe that bacteria do NOT exist without proof.

However, and here’s where you’re being an idiot: one doesn’t have to propose that bacteria do not exist to argue against someone’s “proof” that bacteria do exist. If someone told me that I have to believe bacteria exist because the proponent recently flew to the moon (without a spacecraft, like a super-hero) where bacteria grow much larger and that a 3 meter long bacterium communicated vocally with the proponent in the not-previously-detected lunar atmosphere and that the bacterium insisted that spacefaring lunar bacteria evolved on earth from unintelligent bacteria which still populate the earth…

…I would reject that argument as lunacy. I would critique all the ridiculous things about it. And, in so doing, I would be neither proposing nor defending the hypothesis that bacteria do NOT exist.

Each hypothesis has its burden of proof determined separately. The fact that you think that “both sides” have an equal burden is because you haven’t figured out that one can disbelieve that something is proven without believing that the opposite has been proven.

If I insist that a graph of (6x – 3)(x + 2)(x-9) crosses the x-axis at -2, +0.5, and +9, my daughter is free to not believe me until I prove it, but that doesn’t mean that she believes the graph certainly **doesn’t** cross the x-axis at -2, +0.5, and +9.

You seem to be entirely incapable of understanding that “I don’t know” is a perfectly acceptable answer, and that one can disbelieve someone’s attempt at a proof of concept X without believing the opposite of concept X.

In this case, it’s trivially easy to say that the existence of god is not proven (not least because “god” hasn’t even been consistently defined) without saying that “god” (whatever that means) has been proven not to exist.

Suck it up. If you’re trying to prove something, the burden is on you. The fact that you’re incapable of perceiving that “X is not proven to exist” is a different statement than “X is proven to not exist” doesn’t magically make the two equivalent.

Kalid, until you demonstrate with solid SCIENTIFIC, not theological evidence, that the Koran isn’t a book of mythology/fiction, like all holy books, and which is the null hypothesis, you can’t even attempt the leap of faith to proving Allah, You failed in your mission, as your cherry picking is prima facie evidence you know you are WRONG.
It would be easier to evidence Allah by showing us the equivalent of the eternally burning bush. Again, missing in action, and has been for 2500 years. You have nothing but YOUR FAITH. I dismiss your faith as delusion.

As the Haddith says: Adam was a giant very tall almost 30 meters height also the prophet said that our first ancestors were physically different from later generations; this is the horizontal gene transfer, this mean we had evolved, and this mechanism of adaptation is in part of Allah’s design.

horizontal gene transfer

Here i was trying to write *vertical gene transfer* I’m apologizing the mistake, the two terms are related so i wrote the wrong one according to my context.

A broken vitamin c gene in the same place within different species is just like similarity that all animals have genes…

There is a broken vitamin c gene in a group of species that are all broken in the same place. There is ANOTHER group of broken vitamin c genes in a DIFFERENT group of species that is broken in a DIFFERENT place.

Evolutionary theory explains BOTH why within each group the vitamin c gene is broken in the same place AND why in the two different groups it is broken in a DIFFERENT place. It also explains WHY those two groups, specifically, have broken vitamin c genes and other groups more closely related to each of those two groups do not. It ALSO explains why and how the SPECIFIC breakage in each of those genes manages to break the gene’s function. It ALSO explains why there should even be a broken vitamin c gene found in ANY group in the first place.

Evolutionary theory explains well BOTH the similarities AND the differences in life forms we observe, in all the details and all the specifics.

Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden @375

In fact, the burden of proof applies only **one single hypothesis at a time**. If you are proposing that bacteria exist, the burden is upon you to prove it. Others don’t have any logical, epistemological, rational, or practical requirement to believe that bacteria exist without proof.

Ok, but also others must not reject that bacteria could exist without prove, because our knowledge and information is limited yet expanding so they must not rule out at least the probability.

But if they reject, then they are proposing a new hypothesis and they must bear thier share of the burden.

If you are proposing that bacteria do NOT exist, the burden is upon you to prove it. Others don’t have any logical, epistemological, rational, or practical requirement to believe that bacteria do NOT exist without proof.

Ok, anyone who is proposing this hypothesis also must bear the burden of proof, so we are in agreement here, you just admited that both hypothesis must be tested and that is all of what I’m talking about.

…I would reject that argument as lunacy. I would critique all the ridiculous things about it. And, in so doing, I would be neither proposing nor defending the hypothesis that bacteria do NOT exist.

Here we are dealing with a clear contradiction, what does the term rejection means?

You said:

… would reject that argument as lunacy. I would critique all the ridiculous things about it.

When you are rejecting something you must have a proof that it does not exist, given that our knowledge is constained we never had the 100% information about everything, at least you must not reject but you must be nuetral and you must beleive the probability = < 50% that it may or may not exist.

But if you reject something you must have a solid proof that it does NOT exist.

…..Each hypothesis has its burden of proof determined separately.

Yes i agree with you, so…

The fact that you think that “both sides” have an equal burden is because you haven’t figured out that one can disbelieve that something is proven without believing that the opposite has been proven.

This is inconsistent, you are admiting that you are nuetral at the same moment you are judging that some thing don’t exist by rejecting it.

here you only have three options:

1.Accept the proposed hypothesis about bacteria.( X = 100 )

2.Reject the proposed hypothesis about bacteria.( X ≠ 100)

3.Be neutral means YOU can’t judge because lack of proof also YOUR knowledge is limited no one have the access of full 100% information to judge yet so bacteria may or may not exist. (50% = 50% )

Because if you are nuetral your inability to judge must be based on one thing which is lack of knowledge, if you had full knowledge you can judge either wrong or right.

If I insist that a graph of (6x – 3)(x + 2)(x-9) crosses the x-axis at -2, +0.5, and +9, my daughter is free to not believe me until I prove it, but that doesn’t mean that she believes the graph certainly **doesn’t** cross the x-axis at -2, +0.5, and +9.

Your daughter’s neutrality means inablity to judge because by lack of information is hindering her judgment only if she got the information she can judge either right or wrong, her inability to judge means she holds some probability.

You seem to be entirely incapable of understanding that “I don’t know” is a perfectly acceptable answer, and that one can disbelieve someone’s attempt at a proof of concept X without believing the opposite of concept X.

YES I am capable of understanding that and that is all of what I’m talking about, if you don’t know then don’t judge if you don’t judge that doesn’t mean you judge and reject, if you don’t know you must hold a probability, i don’t see anything in between.

In this case, it’s trivially easy to say that the existence of god is not proven (not least because “god” hasn’t even been consistently defined) without saying that “god” (whatever that means) has been proven not to exist.

God in Islam ALLAH was defined his characteristics and the place were he lives, and yes he lives he has physiscal characteristics, although not like humans or anyother thing, he has a fixed place were he stays although he some times moves around, he thinks, he has all the knowledge, he sees, he hears, feels, he is super he is omnipotent he stays in the peak of the all existing universes in place named ( SIDRAT AL-MUNTAHA).

We have never seen that place but beleiveing all those information is based on true and verified prophecies about the expanding unverse, about the big bang and about human embryonic development that Quran explained in the 7th century.

Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden @375

In fact, the burden of proof applies only **one single hypothesis at a time**. If you are proposing that bacteria exist, the burden is upon you to prove it. Others don’t have any logical, epistemological, rational, or practical requirement to believe that bacteria exist without proof.

Ok, but also others must not reject that bacteria could exist without prove, because our knowledge and information is limited yet expanding so they must not rule out at least the probability.

But if they reject, then they are proposing a new hypothesis and they must bear thier share of the burden.

If you are proposing that bacteria do NOT exist, the burden is upon you to prove it. Others don’t have any logical, epistemological, rational, or practical requirement to believe that bacteria do NOT exist without proof.

Ok, anyone who is proposing this hypothesis also must bear the burden of proof, so we are in agreement here, you just admited that both hypothesis must be tested and that is all of what I’m talking about.

…I would reject that argument as lunacy. I would critique all the ridiculous things about it. And, in so doing, I would be neither proposing nor defending the hypothesis that bacteria do NOT exist.

Here we are dealing with a clear contradiction, what does the term rejection means?

You said:

… would reject that argument as lunacy. I would critique all the ridiculous things about it.

When you are rejecting something you must have a proof that it does not exist, given that our knowledge is constained we never had the 100% information about everything, at least you must not reject but you must be nuetral and you must beleive the probability = < 50% that it may or may not exist.

But if you reject something you must have a solid proof that it does NOT exist.

…..Each hypothesis has its burden of proof determined separately.

Yes i agree with you, so…

The fact that you think that “both sides” have an equal burden is because you haven’t figured out that one can disbelieve that something is proven without believing that the opposite has been proven.

This is inconsistent, you are admiting that you are nuetral at the same moment you are judging that some thing don’t exist by rejecting it.

here you only have three options:

1.Accept the proposed hypothesis about bacteria.( X = 100 )

2.Reject the proposed hypothesis about bacteria.( X ≠ 100)

3.Be neutral means YOU can’t judge because lack of proof also YOUR knowledge is limited no one have the access of full 100% information to judge yet so bacteria may or may not exist. (50% = 50% )

Because if you are nuetral your inability to judge must be based on one thing which is lack of knowledge, if you had full knowledge you can judge either wrong or right.

If I insist that a graph of (6x – 3)(x + 2)(x-9) crosses the x-axis at -2, +0.5, and +9, my daughter is free to not believe me until I prove it, but that doesn’t mean that she believes the graph certainly **doesn’t** cross the x-axis at -2, +0.5, and +9.

Your daughter’s neutrality means inablity to judge because by lack of information is hindering her judgment only if she got the information she can judge either right or wrong, her inability to judge means she holds some probability.

You seem to be entirely incapable of understanding that “I don’t know” is a perfectly acceptable answer, and that one can disbelieve someone’s attempt at a proof of concept X without believing the opposite of concept X.

YES I am capable of understanding that and that is all of what I’m talking about, if you don’t know then don’t judge if you don’t judge that doesn’t mean you judge and reject, if you don’t know you must hold a probability, i don’t see anything in between.

In this case, it’s trivially easy to say that the existence of god is not proven (not least because “god” hasn’t even been consistently defined) without saying that “god” (whatever that means) has been proven not to exist.

God in Islam ALLAH was defined his characteristics and the place were he lives, and yes he lives he has physiscal characteristics, although not like humans or anyother thing, he has a fixed place were he stays although he some times moves around, he thinks, he has all the knowledge, he sees, he hears, feels, he is super he is omnipotent he stays in the peak of the all existing universes in place named ( SIDRAT AL-MUNTAHA).

We have never seen that place but beleiveing all those information is based on true and verified prophecies about the expanding unverse, about the big bang and about human embryonic development that Quran explained in the 7th century.

Kalid, if you and demonstrate your Koran is inerrant, with absolutely no mistakes, you may have a point. Even one mistake, it isn’t inerrant, and there is no chance to show your Allah exists via the Koran, and you are back to the easier and more direct equivalent to the eternally burning bush. All your presuppositional drivel is dismissed as extreme fuckwittery from a True Believer™, who can’t say what evidence will cause them to acknowledge you are wrong. If you can’t be wrong, you will never be right, as you are so wrong you aren’t even wrong….

Why are you sorry? It is typical of delusional fools, who think their fuckwittery is evidence, or similar fuckwittery from others. Which if unattributed, is plagiarism, and prima facie evidence you lie and bullshit.

Why? It's not like your non-duplicate comments are any less repetitious. You should be sorry about the poor quality of all of your comments and your inability to argue with any degree of coherence. You should be sorry about your stubbornness and inability to actually take in new information given to you. You should be sorry for wasting our time with your bullshit.

You keep saying that you understand what I’m talking about and that we are arguing identical things. But you consistently show that you have no fucking clue what I’m talking about and that you are arguing something very different.

The following is the perfect example:

I said:

If someone told me that I have to believe bacteria exist because the proponent recently flew to the moon (without a spacecraft, like a super-hero) where bacteria grow much larger and that a 3 meter long bacterium communicated vocally with the proponent in the not-previously-detected lunar atmosphere and that the bacterium insisted that spacefaring lunar bacteria evolved on earth from unintelligent bacteria which still populate the earth…

…I would reject that argument as lunacy. I would critique all the ridiculous things about it. And, in so doing, I would be neither proposing nor defending the hypothesis that bacteria do NOT exist.

and you then replied:

Here we are dealing with a clear contradiction, what does the term rejection means?

You said:

… would reject that argument as lunacy. I would critique all the ridiculous things about it.

When you are rejecting something you must have a proof that it does not exist, given that our knowledge is constained we never had the 100% information about everything, at least you must not reject but you must be nuetral and you must beleive the probability = < 50% that it may or may not exist.

But if you reject something you must have a solid proof that it does NOT exist.

Let’s look at this again, shall we?

I would reject that argument as lunacy. I would critique all the ridiculous things about it [the argument]. And, in so doing, I would be neither proposing nor defending the hypothesis that bacteria do NOT exist.

Your reply, I emphasize:

This is inconsistent, you are admiting that you are nuetral at the same moment you are judging that some thing don’t exist by rejecting it.
…

if you don’t know then don’t judge if you don’t judge that doesn’t mean you judge and reject, if you don’t know you must hold a probability, i don’t see anything in between.

Which just goes to show that you have no idea what I’m saying. You’re conflating rejecting an **argument** with rejecting a **conclusion**.

If that hypothetical idiot told you that bacteria exist because he’d flown to the moon and spoken to a giant bacterium in the airless lunar atmosphere that still somehow propagated sound, you could reject the ARGUMENT without rejecting that bacteria do, in fact, exist.

A reason to believe is not the same thing as the actual existence of the thing in question. An argument can be bad even though it argues for things that actually exist (like bacteria). An argument can appear to be good, though it argues for something that doesn’t actually exist.

You are equating rejecting the argument with rejecting the thing.

Stop it.

That’s idiocy. That’s what I’m decrying. Saying you agree while committing the fallacy in question just makes you seem even less competent at arguing your point.

Kalid, there is a saying in English that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Part of the problems we are having here is that you have grown up god-soaked, in a culture based on the assumption that Allah is everywhere, everything, and all-important. To you, the claim that Allah does not exist is an extraordinary claim. You want extraordinary proof … no, you want to destroy the claims, but you would, perhaps be influenced by extraordinary evidence … no, you would deny that, and change your mind to make it less important.

In other words, you are not going to ever be convinced that Allah does not exist, nor will you ever credit anything anyone says against the existence of Allah. Your head is down and locked, constrained by your belief. But you wish to believe that you are a rational person, and you wish people to believe that you are rational, so here you are, making a mockery of logic and truth, and showing that you are barkingly irrational.

Conversely, to the people here, the claim that Allah exists is an extraordinary one, and requires extraordinary proof. You haven’t offered anything approaching proof of any of your claims, let alone Allah.

So you retreat into claims that the people here are close-minded, and other such extraordinary claims. And you have no evidence for that, just your belief.

See, Kalid, you are a believer. That is what you do. You take things on faith, not facts. Seriously, Islam is a faith, it says so right on the tin. People who do not follow Islam are called “unbelievers”.

So where does your faith end, and facts take over? Nowhere, I say. You are here blatting on about your beliefs, and you believe that you are making good arguments, and you believe that you make sense, and you believe that we are wrong, and you believe all kinds of things about us that apply better to you.

Kalid, there is a thing called “projection”, where you assume your opponents are just like you. Me, I started with the assumption that you were going to be honest and do your best to communicate. You, well, you have accused us of all kinds of bias and blindness and generally religious behavior. And you have done that often, hatefully and hurtfully. I dunno what the Quran says about that, but the Bible says that doing so is bad … and evidently common for religious folks.

Kalid, brother, listen to me a moment. You have spoken most hatefully about the way that religious people think. Perhaps you are tired of it, and tired of having to do it. You may resent the twisted logic that your religion has forced upon you, and you may be wishing for the freedom of straight thought. You seem to honor truth. You should seek truth, honestly, wherever it is.

I, too, grew up in a very religious culture. Many others here did. We broke away from the chains and shackles of religion, and now we are free to seek truth, and free to respect each other for what we are.

Kalid, I can tell that you hate religious ways of thought. I can tell that you are fighting this argument here to fight the doubts in your own heart, and to silence the voices in your head that speak whenever you speak out against bias and prejudice and blindness.

Kalid is not enough of a godbotherer for you? Let’s see if a xtian presuppositionalist can be more entertaining: Jesus – with you always.

I was awakened in the middle of the night with a clear, vivid impression that the Lord wanted me to do some special drawings — drawings depicting ordinary people in their everyday environment . . . . with one important addition: the presence of Jesus Christ and His involvement in those routine activities.

It would liven up this discussion to hear Kalid’s take on such a religious person.

@ Kalid

Can you see that the artist linked to above is suffering from a rather aberrant delusion? That is: He is utterly convinced that Jesus is always right next to him as he depicts Jesus being always next to all manner of people practicing their humdrum vocations. He is convinced that this is true, because the bible has told him it is true:

Matthew 28:20 … Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Consider this exchange:

Theophontes (pensive tardigrade): “Science has never found Jesus next to anyone. Ever.”

Larry Van Pelt (goddist extraordinaire) : “But that is a failure of science, not the Bible. What you must do is believe that Jesus is next to you. Perhaps in 1100 years time science will have caught up with The Truth ™ ! In the meantime, we must just believe!”

Kalid, do you understand how ridiculous the above suggestion is? Do you realise that this is precisely what you have suggested in the case of Mohammad? That if his followers believed in an expanding universe for some 1100 years, their BELIEF would finally be vindicated by science.

Do you think that Islamists will now start becoming scientists, start following logic, honesty and truth, now that their magical thinking – their belief – has been shown (even if only incidentally, and rather ambiguously) to be congruent with current scientific thinking?

No, Kalid. That is wishful thinking on your part. Morally and intellectually Islam has been declining in exact proportion to its becoming enarmoured by magical thinking. If you wish to discuss notions of scientific truth, then you are backing the wrong horse. Consider what Menyambal has suggested. Turn your back on your religious indoctrination.

Look around you. Look to Isis, Al-Quaeda, the (horribly misnomer) Taliban. Do they care about science? Expanding universes? Embryology? They seek only justification to hate. They need to indoctrinate people to hate, because they need people to fight and die for them. This in turn gives them political power, to feed their ego’s and the very system that created them. It is a nasty vicious circle¹. This is the real outcome of the arguments of apologists like yourself. You are feeding ignorance and intolerance, the very things that science is diametrically opposed to.

Science and religion are fundamentally antagonistic. You do yourself no favours trying to straddle the divide. All this has achieved, to date, is make you ignorant of science, and in denial of the tenets of the religion you were indoctrinated into.

…

¹ And in no way unique to Islam. This very same principle has been applied by all the Abrahamic religions, and others too. Religion is a political tool honed through centuries of circumstance and experience to turn you into a Useful Idiot. (And, further, this thread bears witness to religion’s failure to improve your understanding of science or logic.)

Why are you sorry? It is typical of delusional fools, who think their fuckwittery is evidence, or similar fuckwittery from others. Which if unattributed, is plagiarism, and prima facie evidence you lie and bullshit.

anteprepro @387

kalid
Sorry about the duplicate comments! </blockquote cite<
Why? It's not like your non-duplicate comments are any less repetitious. You should be sorry about the poor quality of all of your comments and your inability to argue with any degree of coherence. You should be sorry about your stubbornness and inability to actually take in new information given to you. You should be sorry for wasting our time with your bullshit.

</blockquote cite<

Damn these *blockquotes* are really bullshit:

Someone answers:

cm’s changeable moniker (quaint, if not charming) @388

If nothing else, I must commend WordPress for its resilience in the face of so much blockquote abuse.

The first replies:

anteprepro @389

And speaking of blockquote abuse…I now walk away in shame!

The second apologizes: ( Look the hypocrisy and the BIAS )

cm’s changeable moniker (quaint, if not charming) @390

Sorry, anteprepro, #388 was posted without seeing your #387.

But, damn, if it wasn’t relevant. ;-)

The fist replies:

anteprepro @391

Oh, I know it wasn’t. Just hilarious timing!

The second goes too deep in the nonsense ocean of stupidity and explains what the word *Delusion* means theoretically by giving a good example:

For what it’s worth, I have, elsewhere, proposed a theory of Quantum Post-Tanglement, which prompts two (usually; sometimes more) people to post essentially the same post at the same time.

Should this be evidence of Quantum Post-Borkquotia, I can only call upon the relevant bodies and say those dread words: more research is needed.

Wait a minute, I’ve got lost in the middle of the nonsense, i was thinking about *Quantum Post-Borkquotia* what the f*ck is this?

Oh.. may be its a terrible delusion or may be its not, any way this is a bullshit I have to stop commenting about it.

Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden @393

You keep saying that you understand what I’m talking about and that we are arguing identical things. But you consistently show that you have no fucking clue what I’m talking about and that you are arguing something very different.

O.k say your point….

You said

I would reject that argument as lunacy. I would critique all the ridiculous things about it [the argument]. And, in so doing, I would be neither proposing nor defending the hypothesis that bacteria do NOT exist.

I said

This is inconsistent, you are admiting that you are nuetral at the same moment you are judging that some thing don’t exist by rejecting it.
…

if you don’t know then don’t judge if you don’t judge that doesn’t mean you judge and reject, if you don’t know you must hold a probability, i don’t see anything in between.

you said:

Which just goes to show that you have no idea what I’m saying. You’re conflating rejecting an **argument** with rejecting a **conclusion**.

This time, I don’t understand what you are talking about !

I thought that the conclusion is an important part the argument, if you want to reject the argument you must reject its conclusion.

Which part of the argument would you like to reject?

The conclusion?

The premises?

Or what?

Any rejection of an argument must be supported with good reasons to reject it, good reasons come from good information and good information comes from 100% assured knowledge.

Any rejection of an argument must be supported with good reasons to reject it, good reasons come from good information and good information comes from 100% assured knowledge.

If you don’t have enough information then stop rejecting anything.

No reasoning need be required to reject theological fuckwittery. All that is required is knowing evidence is available that refutes your sorry ass and is found in places like this: A Science Library. Your deity doesn’t exist, and your holy book is tripe. Fuck off loser. You have nothing intelligent to say and prove it with every stupid post with tripe like your claims above.

I thought that the conclusion is an important part the argument, if you want to reject the argument you must reject its conclusion.

False. The conclusion of an argument can be true. If the premises are false though, then the argument doesn’t prove the conclusion. IF the premises are true but the logic is shit though, then the argument doesn’t prove the conclusion. You reject the argument because it isn’t illogical or is based on false premises. That doesn’t make the conclusion false though. But if every argument ever put forth for that conclusion has to be rejected…..then it is hard to not to start to see a pattern.

Again, tentative positions. Again, burden of proof. It is almost impossible to prove a negative. That is why we wait compelling logical cases FOR the existence of something, and assume that doesn’t exist until given the evidence needed to believe otherwise. This is what we do with aliens, this what we do with ghosts, this is what we do with psychic powers, this is what we do with virtually everything that isn’t your beloved fucking deities.

good reasons come from good information and good information comes from 100% assured knowledge.

False because there is no such thing as 100% assured knowledge. Suck it up and deal with probabilities and certainties just shy of absolutes. Because if you don’t, you are just deluding yourself.

Kalid, there is a saying in English that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Yes, and I agree with you that every claim requires a proof, every claim whether positive (acceptance) or negative (rejection) requires a solid evidence.

in a culture based on the assumption that Allah is everywhere, everything, and all-important. To you, the claim that Allah does not exist is an extraordinary claim.

What……? who said this?

First, I interact with atheists as much as I interact with theists not only Muslims.

Second, Allah is not everywhere, nor he is everything, he is so special he lives in somewhere at the top of all universes known as (SIDRAT AL MUNTAHA) he has intelligence, all knowledge, power, he has specified physical existence, he can communicate.

You want extraordinary proof … no, you want to destroy the claims, but you would, perhaps be influenced by extraordinary evidence … no, you would deny that, and change your mind to make it less important.

If you come up the evidence then you win, but if you can’t then you need to stop the logical inconsistency that you are repeating all the time.

In other words, you are not going to ever be convinced that Allah does not exist, nor will you ever credit anything anyone says against the existence of Allah. Your head is down and locked, constrained by your belief.

Are you asserting what ever you want? how did you come to this conclusion?, i think you are attempting to distort the whole debate, i have to say NO you don’t know what you are talking about, its you who reject all prophecies and accept the delusion and the appeal to ignorance.

But you wish to believe that you are a rational person, and you wish people to believe that you are rational, so here you are, making a mockery of logic and truth, and showing that you are barkingly irrational.

If I’m not rational tell me where I’m irrational, I believe in Allah because I saw all of his prophecies are verified in the real world or at least to be exact *NOT EVEN WRONG* I accept the the prophecy of the expanding universe because its true I accept the prophecy of Human embryonic development because its true or at least *NOT EVEN WRONG* you also can’t falsify the reality of Allah’s EXISTENCE then what kind of rationality would you like?

Oh.. I know you like the appeal to ignorance (Rejecting something without full information and solid evidence) I can’t let my logic to be inconsistent by rejecting something that i don’t have any information about its NON-existence and also never had any solid evidence that it doesn’t exist, this is exactly the above mentioned BACTERIA SCENARIO ANALOGY which is a complete DELUSION.

Conversely, to the people here, the claim that Allah exists is an extraordinary one, and requires extraordinary proof. You haven’t offered anything approaching proof of any of your claims, let alone Allah.

Wrong, I have the true verified prophecies (NOT EVEN WRONG) they are the premises that validates my conclusion that ALLAH do really exists and revealed Quran.

So you retreat into claims that the people here are close-minded, and other such extraordinary claims. And you have no evidence for that, just your belief.

No, the only close minded, delusional human is the one who denied the EXISTENCE of BACTERIA before the discovery of the MICROSCOPE and then accepted the EXISTENCE of BACTERIA after the discovery of the MICROSCOPE, one time he says the TRUTH about BACTERIA is FALSE again he says that the TRUTH about BACTERIA is a FACT, why does that isn’t a (DELUSION)?.

See, Kalid, you are a believer. That is what you do. You take things on faith, not facts. Seriously, Islam is a faith, it says so right on the tin. People who do not follow Islam are called “unbelievers”.

UTTER BULLSHIT, If you think that faith without fact is what Islam is all about then you are either ignorant or lier, I’m a believer in ALLAH and my believe is based on FACTS not mere faith, i live with facts with reality, I see the verified prophecies from embryology, to the expanding universe to the big bang, you have failed to disprove those prophecies and many scientists verified ( E.g the verses that address human embryonic development can be tested scientifically, by first applying in to the context that they relate) some other said its *NOT EVEN WRONG*.

So where does your faith end, and facts take over? Nowhere, I say. You are here blatting on about your beliefs, and you believe that you are making good arguments, and you believe that you make sense, and you believe that we are wrong, and you believe all kinds of things about us that apply better to you.

My faith is consistent with facts logic and good reason its inseparable from reality because my faith in Islam is the reality and anyone who doubts about it you can test it honestly.

You are presupposing that Islam must and must be wrong and that is a clear bias and intellectual dishonesty, lets test the Quran lets test it scientifically those parts that address science related issues and prove your argument or hypothesis.

Kalid, there is a thing called “projection”, where you assume your opponents are just like you. Me, I started with the assumption that you were going to be honest and do your best to communicate. You, well, you have accused us of all kinds of bias and blindness and generally religious behavior. And you have done that often, hatefully and hurtfully. I dunno what the Quran says about that, but the Bible says that doing so is bad … and evidently common for religious folks.

Its the inconsistent logic which refuses to debate intellectually and face reality, blindness is blindness and the argument that accuses blindness must come up with evidence that the accused logic is blind and i did presented the evidence which was the BACTERIA ANALOGY, if that seems offence i just don’t know what to say, i cant defend an inconsistent logic if it becomes clear that it is really delusional, the only open way is to think back make it consistent even if you don’t believe in ALLAH.

Kalid, brother, listen to me a moment. You have spoken most hatefully about the way that religious people think. Perhaps you are tired of it, and tired of having to do it. You may resent the twisted logic that your religion has forced upon you, and you may be wishing for the freedom of straight thought. You seem to honor truth. You should seek truth, honestly, wherever it is.

First, any offence that is shown in any of my comments was a self defense, you can read back, I was honestly debating all the time with @LykeX but i was also dealing with some real morons, if you want an honest debate I am ready!

I, too, grew up in a very religious culture. Many others here did. We broke away from the chains and shackles of religion, and now we are free to seek truth, and free to respect each other for what we are.

I am sorry, but you completely misunderstood religion, the assumption that all religions are similar is wrong generalization, I am also sorry but i have to admit that Christian theology is no longer valid in our age its an outdated religion although it was in its time valid, almost 85% of its tenets are true but invalid in our time.

Kalid, I can tell that you hate religious ways of thought. I can tell that you are fighting this argument here to fight the doubts in your own heart, and to silence the voices in your head that speak whenever you speak out against bias and prejudice and blindness.

Believe me I swear that what i found in Islam is true its valid, today we are debating you are denying ALLAH’s existence I am showing you the prophecies are valid reasons that its true, but you are free, liberty is the most precious bless that ALLAH endowed humanity everyone has the freedom of choice ALLAH wont and never intervene your choice look he even never intervened when Adam chose to eat the prohibited tree but he warned from eating that tree.

Everyone is responsible, everyone must bear the consequences of what he/she chooses, that is what makes us independent humans, logical and responsible.

ALLAH gave us the intellect the power to reason and the ability to judge what is reasonable and what is not, even ADAM bears the full responsibility of what he did what he chose, he knew that eating such tree is wrong and he did it because DEVIL misled him through disinformation and skepticism and the consequence is that he was ousted from paradise/heaven which was a prefect life.

I’m sure for 100% that in some day you will remember my friendly advice and i am doing this because it makes me sad that much of humanity are today lost in the darkness of skepticism and uncertainty, do one thing do an honest research on Islam and for the sake of truth without any presuppositions; study it and compare it and you will find truth and if you don’t find it then you are absolutely free to do what you think its good for you.

You know that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, our matter was derived from mixture of clay solved with water and other elements then our RNA may be it replicated and formed our DNA then then Adam, see this simple integration, reaction and molecular creation is made up of those basic elements ( CARBON, OXYGEN, HYDROGEN, NITROGEN AND PHOSPHORUS ) those elements cannot be destroyed, ALLAH does his business of creation of life by one single word which is BE and simple the thing begins his chemical reaction and biological process to begin its life.

Life is too short and you are not certain about what will happen after billions of years when known earth comes in to its end and our sun is eaten by supernova, Islam says you will be recreated and every human will be recreated like may be the same way that life had began on earth the very simple integration and reaction, your DNA will be recreated/reintegrated and your neural connections that once framed your memory will reconnect to remember this blog this debate and at that DAY when ALLAH questions you and ask you why you didn’t believe me on earth, I know you will demand from him a second chance but there will be no more second chances only in this life we have the precious chance.

Do you remember our BACTERIA ANALOGY the same scenario will be the reality and truth will be so astonishing but in earth we can fluctuate and adjust our delusional logic that truth can be NOT EXISTS due to our constrained sense of knowledge and when our knowledge expands WE can change our previous logic by ACCEPTING the EXISTENCE of truth, but at that day this will not be the case it will be either eternal damnation in hell or eternal enjoyment in paradise with a perfect real life.

Abandon faith, Kalid. Seek truth. Find happiness

Today you have the chance when you die there will be no more chance, life is not this only the real life is the one in our ultimate future the eternal situation. ( bear in mind that when you die you are not going anywhere MATTER CANNOT BE DESTROYED)

Still no conclusive physical evidence for Allah Kalid. Everything you say therefore is presuppositional bullshit, without any reality and cogency. It is therefore dismissed for what it is, theological proselytizing.

Again, what evidence is required for you to acknowledge you are wrong???? Your failure to answer this question tells us all we need to know about your inane and ignorant screeds, which are your own delusions you can’t imagine to be wrong….

one time he says the TRUTH about BACTERIA is FALSE again he says that the TRUTH about BACTERIA is a FACT, why does that isn’t a (DELUSION)?.

Wrong. Until the microscope, any who said bacteria were real were asked, “What is your evidence?” They were not told that BACTERIA did NOT exist. They were told, “Show us your evidence.” With the microscope available, the doubters could be shown bacteria, and would accept the fact of bacteria’s existence.
Until the microscope evidence was available, doubters would doubt the existence of bacteria, they would not say, “bacteria do NOT exist”. They would say, “Maybe, but…”, or “We don’t believe you.” Note, the use of “we don’t believe you” is significantly different than “You are wrong”.
.
To reiterate, it is not required for the doubters to provide evidence to reject another’s proposal. They are perfectly justified to reject the claim if the claimant provides no evidence and only asserts the proposal.

MATTER CANNOT BE DESTROYED

Wrong. Matter CAN be destroyed. We destroy matter in nuclear reactors all the time. You may quibble that conversion to energy is not destruction, but it is effectively sufficient to be called destruction.
.
“NOT EVEN WRONG” is a colloquialism for an argument that is so wrong, it isn’t worth trying to refute every little piece, and explain why the refutation is correct, and on and on. IT IS NOT an obscure synonym for “mostly correct”. It is like a metaphor, to be understood figuratively, not literally. Your proselytizing would read slightly more coherently if you just stop using that phrase.

He seems to have got hair down pat, just screwing up the hands a little. Maybe he should pray louder next time.

@ Kalid

You keep harping on about bacteria. From your responses, it appears that you are failing to grasp some fundamental points that Crip Dyke tried to relay to you earlier , in #375.

I am a little concerned that English is not your first language, and that the message is not getting across to you. Perhaps read the (intentionally) ridiculous story about giant lunar bacteria again. Do you realise this is a just-so story, that is a complete fabrication, from beginning to end? It is NOT a means to understand that bacteria exist. That must be done separately, using real science.

The just-so fairytale might have as conclusion that these micro-organisms exist, but we do not know this to be TRUE, until we can establish this in the proper (ie: not fairytale) manner. We need real evidence, not make-belief storytelling, opinions, thumbsucks and leaps of faith.

Kalid, it is perfectly OK to say “I don’t know”. It does not help to fill the gaps in your knowledge with bullshit, flying horses, second rate fairytales, walking tours of heaven, and the like.

You say you “know” that the Universe is expanding because science tells you this. Therefore, science tells you that Allah exists. Tell me, Kalid, how did Islamists know that Allah existed before science “proved” such? Obviously you are doing something completely different to historical Islamists! They had faith without the facts (your words) that you have brought to the table.

Are you going to address my #396 (also my # 280 and #356)? I think it will clarify some faults in your thinking.

Yes, and I agree with you that every claim requires a proof, every claim whether positive (acceptance) or negative (rejection) requires a solid evidence.

wrong. Rejecting a claim can be justified when the claimant provides NO solid evidence. The rejector does not have to provide evidence to prove the negative. He may have to show how the claimant’s evidence is insufficient to accept the claim as “proven”. To require “evidence” to reject the claim is too often the ploy of charletons to deceive that their claim must be true since no one can DISprove it.

I thought that the conclusion is an important part the argument, if you want to reject the argument you must reject its conclusion.

The argument is more important than the conclusion. A good argument that comes to the wrong conclusion can readily be examined to determine why the conclusion came out wrong, and adjusted to make the right conclusion. It can be readily adapted to many other related circumstances, and produce many additional conclusions, the majority of which will be right or close enough to right to be useful.

Utility. That is the all-important feature that poor kalid completely fails to grasp.

A conclusion that happens to be correct despite a bad argument is in fact worse than useless. It is DANGEROUS. You were just plain LUCKY that you happened to be right, but you deceive yourself into thinking your bad argument was a good one. You then apply that same mode of thinking in other situations, and end up producing exponentially WORSE conclusions.

It is precisely from this thought process that all the worse atrocities in human history, and many of the plain tragic mistakes, arise from.

By trying to continue to promote this mode of thinking, kalid stains his hands with the blood of all the billions who have died and suffered for this reason.

Kalid is not enough of a godbotherer for you? Let’s see if a xtian presuppositionalist can be more entertaining: Jesus – with you always.

I was awakened in the middle of the night with a clear, vivid impression that the Lord wanted me to do some special drawings — drawings depicting ordinary people in their everyday environment . . . . with one important addition: the presence of Jesus Christ and His involvement in those routine activities.

It would liven up this discussion to hear Kalid’s take on such a religious person.

I’m not a Christian, and i know that Christianity once was a valid religion but its now outdated although most of its tenets are still true and yes their bible is revealed by the same God that Muslims also believe.

@ Kalid

Can you see that the artist linked to above is suffering from a rather aberrant delusion? That is: He is utterly convinced that Jesus is always right next to him as he depicts Jesus being always next to all manner of people practicing their humdrum vocations. He is convinced that this is true, because the bible has told him it is true:

Matthew 28:20 … Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

They misunderstood that it was meant metaphorically not as a ghost, Jesus Christ was never died he is in somewhere near God, and i don’t mean his soul but him materially. (although i don’t blame them of first believing that he was crucified yes someone who was exactly like him physically was crucified in the same place that they thought Jesus was crucified, but their blame is that when God send a second and last message the Quran they rejected and that is why their religion is no longer valid.

Consider this exchange:

Theophontes (pensive tardigrade): “Science has never found Jesus next to anyone. Ever.”

Larry Van Pelt (goddist extraordinaire) : “But that is a failure of science, not the Bible. What you must do is believe that Jesus is next to you. Perhaps in 1100 years time science will have caught up with The Truth ™ ! In the meantime, we must just believe!”

That was a metaphor, and science will never find Jesus Christ on earth, Jesus Christ is not in earth.

*But anyway i would prefer a Christian girlfriend rather than an atheist girlfriend Cuz Christians are not absolutely deluded just a little bit not so much.*

Kalid, do you understand how ridiculous the above suggestion is? Do you realise that this is precisely what you have suggested in the case of Mohammad? That if his followers believed in an expanding universe for some 1100 years, their BELIEF would finally be vindicated by science.

No that explanation of the bible is ridicules, i am sure that God was talking metaphorically not literally, and the the verse in Quran which is referring the Expanding universe it is originally talking about science related issues not faith related issues.

Do you think that Islamists will now start becoming scientists, start following logic, honesty and truth, now that their magical thinking – their belief – has been shown (even if only incidentally, and rather ambiguously) to be congruent with current scientific thinking?

First, You are not the first one in this thread who tried to politicize this debate and i have to admit that the believers in the religion of Islam are called Muslims not *Islamists* (which is used as a political terminology).

Second, Muslims were the fathers of science in our time, may be you are hypocritically denying that but they added the knowledge of science a great contribution, and not only science but so many things read history, they contributed to economics ( Ibn khaldun, Ghazali) sociology, Governance (constitutional democracy is rooted on Islam) and so on.

No, Kalid. That is wishful thinking on your part. Morally and intellectually Islam has been declining in exact proportion to its becoming enarmoured by magical thinking. If you wish to discuss notions of scientific truth, then you are backing the wrong horse. Consider what Menyambal has suggested. Turn your back on your religious indoctrination.

Islam is the fastest growing religion in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA its one of the fastest growing religions in the world, whether you accept it or deny it its a reality.

Morally, its one of the most noble religion that embrace the human logic, moral, liberty and freedom, Islam never accepted totalitarianism or oppression read unbiased history, The leadership model of prophet Mohamed was a very democratic which was based on decentralized decision making and consensus, Islam always embraced private property, individual liberty and providing the fertile environment for opportunity and hope.

Look around you. Look to Isis, Al-Quaeda, the (horribly misnomer) Taliban. Do they care about science? Expanding universes? Embryology? They seek only justification to hate. They need to indoctrinate people to hate, because they need people to fight and die for them. This in turn gives them political power, to feed their ego’s and the very system that created them. It is a nasty vicious circle¹.

Is that your way to demonize a whole religion through the efficient use of PROPAGANDA and DISINFORMATION. I AM SPEECHLESS !!!

When i saw this part of the comment i was completely shocked, i remembered the intense propaganda machine for the RED EVIL the soviet union and the cold war, i remembered the whole diversity of the communist propaganda and disinformation campaigns, it was more then a decade that communists tried hardly to sell to the world that AMERICA had deliberately invented the HIV virus, but i never worked, and today that failed hopeless evil still didn’t stopped the NORTH KOREANS still use that kind of disinformation and other kinds of the propaganda EVIL (remember the accusation that USA used biological weapons in the KOREAN war).

I’m sorry, your method is not working, i had a vaccination against PROPAGANDA and DISINFORMATION.

TERRORISM HAD NOTHING TO DO with Islam, they are A GROUP OF BARBARIC CRIMINALS, who use and twist religion as a political tool, they can be found every where any religion.

AND my argument had nothing to do with THOSE THINGS.

PLEASE STOP BIGOTRY, YOU ARE USING THIS PROPAGANDA ARGUMENT as tool to SHUT ME UP, but SORRY we live in the free world, remember AMERICA is still the beacon of liberty.

If someone told me that I have to believe bacteria exist because the proponent recently flew to the moon (without a spacecraft, like a super-hero) where bacteria grow much larger and that a 3 meter long bacterium communicated vocally with the proponent in the not-previously-detected lunar atmosphere and that the bacterium insisted that spacefaring lunar bacteria evolved on earth from unintelligent bacteria which still populate the earth…

Oh, I think I see your problem. You seem to think “not even wrong” is a good thing. It is not. Wrong can be corrected. ‘Not even wrong’ is irredeemable–so lost that you can keep clinging to it the same worthless idea.

Here’s a question, Kalid. We have learned that the true value of a theory is whether it can predict anything that is nontrivial and unambiguous. That means that you cannot just squint and say, “well you can sort of interpret it that way”. It means the prediction goes out on a limb–x will happen by date Y. Do you have any predictions like that?

If your understanding of the phrase “not even wrong” is correct, then you have to acknowledge that I am the most super-awesome person who ever lived.

For your consideration: first, my athletic prowess. I have not even lost at Wimbledon, in the Tour de France, at the World Cup, in the 100-meter race at the Olympics, or in any marathon, anywhere.

Next, my intellect: I have not even lost the Nobel in Physics, Chemistry, Biology, or Economics. Einstein has nothing on me.

I think my artistic and political accomplishments speak for themselves. As you can see, I have not even failed in nearly every field of human endeavor, so please feel free to bow down before my awesomenicity.

Islam is the fastest growing religion in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA its one of the fastest growing religions in the world, whether you accept it or deny it its a reality.

Talk about your non-sequiturs. This is utterly irrelevant to your “arguments” *snicker*.

AND my argument had nothing to do with THOSE THINGS.

Actually, there is a correlation. Blind faith in an idea you cannot conceive of being wrong. No matter what solid and conclusive physical evidence is present to demonstrate you are wrong. If you can’t conceive that you are wrong, you are wrong.
The first rule of science is the easiest person to fool is yourself, and you must make sure you don’t fool yourself. If you believe in anything without evidence, you have fooled yourself. You can’t demonstrate with physical evidence Allah exists. You accept it on faith. You have already fooled yourself. And your whole argument has been “I have fooled myself, let me fool you”.

Kalid, though you’re gone, I have to point out a flaw in your penultimate posting:
In it, you tell us Islam is good, cuz all the Science Muslims invented for the world. Then you are shocked that we say Islam is bad cuz of all the terrorists that claim to be Muslim. Can’t you see that you are doing the exact same thing that you are so horrified to see atheists doing? You’re right, that it is horrific to blame every Muslim for the actions of a few Muslims, but it is also horrific to glorify Islam because of what a few Muslims did. Was algebra invented because his religion told him it was right? Just as we allow Christians to be Scientists, as long as they keep the two totally separate, (and many do so), perhaps the same happened in the past. The Muslims who gave us modern science, mathematics, economics, etc. did so by keeping Islam as something *else* he did.
To conclude; Kalid, you seem to be a perfect personification of that phrase we use: “Not even wrong”.

I was humourously apologising and letting anteprepro know that the comment wasn’t directed at them. You know: empathy, consideration, general good manners? (Also, smileys: you should look them up!) How you get hypocrisy and […] BIAS out of that only indicates your appalling inability to read for comprehension.

The second goes too deep in the nonsense ocean of stupidity and explains what the word *Delusion* means theoretically by giving a good example:

Should this be evidence of Quantum Post-Borkquotia, I can only call upon the relevant bodies and say those dread words: more research is needed.

Wait a minute, I’ve got lost in the middle of the nonsense, i was thinking about *Quantum Post-Borkquotia* what the f*ck is this?

It’s a joke, you nitwit. Add humour (and quantum entanglement) to the long list of things about which you have no idea.